Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Yorkshire (Woollen District) Transport Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Bacup Corporation Bill [Lords],

Grand Union Canal Bill [Lords],

London Squares Preservation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Scarborough Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Newport (Mon.) Corporation) Bill,

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Nottingham Corporation) Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet able to announce the membership of the Round Table Conference meeting in September?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Not yet, Sir.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether formal invitations have been issued?

Mr. BENN: I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not a fact that the meeting is to be held in September, and that that leaves very little time for delegates which have to come here?

Mr. BENN: The hon. Member can rest assured that the Government are as anxious as he is for the arrangements to be pushed forward.

BURMA.

Mr. FREEMAN: 2 and 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India, (1) whether he can yet make any statement as to the carrying on of the proposals of the Round Table Conference for the future Government of Burma?
(2) whether he will assure the House that in the proposed Round Table Conference on Burma the same basis of free discussion and expression of opinion will be provided as in the original conference on India; and what method is being adopted to secure a representative delegation?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps have yet been taken for the separation of Burma from India; if not, what is the reason for the delay; and, if so, what has been done and what form of Government it is proposed to set up?

Mr. BENN: I am in consultation with the Governments of India and Burma on this matter, and am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Captain MACDONALD: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement?

Mr. BENN: The matter naturally, has been the subject of a great deal of correspondence. The moment I have any information I shall place it at the service of the House.

RIOTS, CAWNPORE.

Mr. REMER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has now received the evidence given before the commission of inquiry at Cawnpore; and if he is prepared to publish it?

Mr. BENN: I received late last week copies of the evidence which is contained in 17 files amounting to 1,833 foolscap pages of typescript. I have just
been informed by the Government of India that they are taking steps to print the evidence in India; and I have asked them to let me have as soon as possible copies which I will place in the Library on receipt.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the evidence will be available here?

Mr. BENN: I cannot say how long it will take to got it printed and sent here, but the moment it reaches me it will be available.

Mr. REMER: If the right hon. Gentleman has copies of the evidence, could it not be printed at once?

Mr. BENN: I do not think that I should be justified in making a special separate print of this very bulky document.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thought the hon. Member was in favour of economy?

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that it must be three or four weeks before we can see the evidence here?

Mr. BENN: That is so.

Mr. REMER: 5.
asked the Secretary of Slate for India what was the official position of Mr. Sale during the Cawnpore riots, and if in that position he had any superior officers in charge at Cawnpore at that time; and, if so, if he will state the names of those officers?

Mr. BENN: Mr. Sale's appointment was that of magistrate and collector, Cawnpore. As the report of the commission indicates, the Commissioner of the Division, Kunwar Maharaj Singh, was in Cawnpore from 26th to 30th March inclusive, and the Governor, Sir George Lambert, who was accompanied by the Home Member, Nawab Sir Muhammad Ahmad Said Khan of Chhitari, on 28th March. The presence of superior officers in the district of a collector does not involve their taking over charge from him nor does it necessarily affect the balance of respective responsibilities.

COTTON (IMPORT DUTY).

Brigadier-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the position of the peasant farmers in India he will make
representations to the Indian Tariff Commission in favour of an import duty on imported raw cotton, and the limitation of the duty on imported cotton goods to cloth of lower counts, for the manufacture of which Indian-grown cotton is suitable?

Mr. BENN: The function of the Indian Tariff Board is to consider questions referred to them by the Government of India, and, so far as I know, the question of the protection of raw cotton has not been so referred.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not passible for the right hon. Gentleman to make representations to the Tariff Board in India?

Mr. BENN: I think the better avenue would be for the persons interested to exorcise their light of making representations for themselves.

Sir A. KNOX: Would not the change be in the interests of the workers in Lancashire as well as the producers in India?

Mr. REMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman take no interest in the Lancashire cotton trade?

FEDERAL STRUCTURE COMMITTEE.

Mr. REMER: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the advisability of inviting the representatives of the Dominions to attend the next meetings of the Federal Structure Committee?

Mr. BENN: No such arrangement is contemplated.

Mr. REMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Dominions are vitally affected in this matter which affects the whole British Empire?

BRITISH GOODS (BOYCOTT AND EXPORT).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 9 and 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he has yet received a report from the Government of India regarding the action taken to prohibit the circulation by Congress agents of letters of covenant demanding that merchants shall cease to deal in foreign piece goods;
(2) whether he has yet received the report from the Government of India regarding the resolution recently passed by the working committee of Congress insisting upon complete prohibition both
of the sale of existing stocks and of the importation of any further stocks of foreign cloth; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give the House any further information on the boycott of British goods in India?

Mr. BENN: I regret that I have not yet received from the Government of India the reports that I am expecting; and at the moment, therefore, I have nothing to add to the answers previously given. In regard, however, to the general effect of the boycott, I am circulating figures showing the relative imports since October of British and Japanese piece goods.

Mr. HACKING: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the resolution passed by Congress, and does he not agree that it is a breach of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement?

Mr. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are communicating with the Government of India with a view-to taking what action is best in the circumstances. That is the reason for the delay, and that is why I ask the right hon. Gentleman to exercise a little patience despite the considerable delay.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question?

Mr. BENN: That question was replied to either last Monday or the Monday before.

Mr. BROCKWAY: May I ask whether there is in these documents any exclusive attack on British goods, and, if not, whether there is any broach of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement?

Mr. BENN: That is exactly the question which the right hon. Gentleman asked me, and it is with a view to seeing the true implication of these two documents that I am making inquiries?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out whether a breach of the agreement has occurred or not?

Following are the figures:

IMPORTS in thousands of yards into India of cotton piece goods, excluding fents.


—
From United Kingdom.
From Japan.


1930.




November
…
…
13,867
20,056


December
…
…
17,670
26,005


1931.




January
…
…
22,830
36,278


February
…
…
24,080
18,831


March
…
…
33,131
31,690


April
…
…
35,921
32,442

ARMY (INDIANISATION).

Sir A. KNOX: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the division of all arms on which it is proposed to experiment in Indianisation will be a newly-raised division?

Mr. BENN: The scheme outlined by the Commander-in-Chief in India contemplates in the main the extension of Indianisation in existing units of the Indian Army.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not the case that, if one whole division is Indianised, it will mean a very serious weakening of the strength of the Indian Army?

Mr. BENN: That is a separate question. The hon. and gallant Member asked me a technical question to which I have endeavoured to give him a reply.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is it true that it is proposed to make the Indian Division complete with field guns and arms?

Mr. BENN: Oh, yes. I imagine that all arms will be included.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not a fact that this will be the first time since the mutiny that they have been allowed to have guns?

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OPERATIONS (MEDAL).

Sir A. KNOX: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has consulted the Government of India with a view to the issue of a medal to the troops lately engaged under active service conditions on the North-West Frontier?

Mr. BENN: I have brought to the notice of the Government of India the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question of the 18th May, but I have not yet heard from them.

BRITISH TEADE (PREFERKNTIAL TREATMENT).

Mr. HACKING: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has made representations to the Government of India in connection with any conditions of preferential treatment being meted out to this country in return for the financial support promised by our Government?

Mr. BENN: I would refer the right hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 1st July.

Mr. HACKING: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked whether he would make representations and to that question I have not received an answer.

Mr. BENN: The answer was implied in the statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the mixing of two interests.

Mr. HACKING: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will never make representations in the interests of Lancashire?

Mr. BENN: That statement, which is obviously made for political purposes, is entirely inaccurate.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's statement gave no information of any kind?

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India proposes to take as a result of the recent report of the Royal Commission on labour conditions in India?

Major GRAHAM POLE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the observations made in the report of the Royal Commission on labour in India concerning the conditions under which the Government's employés in the Government of India's salt mine at Khewara are compelled to work, he will urge upon the Government of India the
necessity of taking whatever steps are possible to improve these conditions?

Mr. BENN: The Government of India will no doubt take into early consideration the numerous recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Labour, whose report was only published last week, and inform me in due course of the action which they propose to take.

ROYAL INDIAN MARINE (COAL).

Major POLE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the representation made to the Government of India on account of the fact that, although the Royal Indian Marine invites tenders for Bengal, Natal, and Cardiff coals, the amount of Indian coal actually purchased is very small, since the coal-burning ships of the Royal Indian Marine and the coal-burning plant in the Royal Indian Marine Dockyard at Bombay are so designed at present as not to enable the employment of Indian coal; and whether, in view of this representation, any and, if so, what steps are being taken to examine the possibility of utilising a greater quantity of Indian coal in the Royal Indian Marine?

Mr. BENN: I am making inquiries from the Government of India.

RAILWAYS.

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the Secretary of state for India if agreement has yet been reached between the Government of India Railway Board and the All-India Railwaymen's Federation; and if the danger of a general strike on the Indian railways is now averted?

Mr. BENN: No settlement has yet been arrived at, so far as I am aware. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a Press communiqué issued by the Government of India on 1st July.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he has any information as to whether there is any danger of a strike?

Mr. BENN: I have no such information.

CURRENCY.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent
large sales of Indian currency, he will take steps to control such operations which have the effect of intensifying the financial and economic depression of India?

Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 26th June. This, by contributing to the restoration of confidence in Indian credit, should help towards the alleviation of the economic depression from which India, like many other countries, is suffering at the present time owing to world causes.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is it not the case that the present position as regards the need for help has been caused by the sale of currency?

Mr. BENN: Perhaps the hon. Baronet would put down a more specific question. My advisers and I were not quite clear as to what he is driving at in the question on the Paper.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for this attack on the gold value of the rupee is in order to make it more difficult for Indians to buy Lancashire cotton goods?

LAND DUES AND RENTS, RAE BARELI DISTRICT.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Congress campaign in the Rae Bareli district, urging the peasants not to pay their land dues and rents; and whether the Government of India are taking any steps to prevent these illegal activities?

Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir. I have, however, no precise information as to the action taken in the Rae Bareli district, although I have been informed that it has recently been necessary to take action under the ordinary law against persons who encourage the non-payment of rent in some districts in the United Provinces.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the fact that the Deputy-Commissioner tried to prevent this campaign, but has been ordered by the Government of India to discontinue his efforts and allow these agitators to continue their campaign?

Mr. BENN: I do not know on what evidence the hon. and gallant Member bases that statement, but I cannot for one moment accept it, nor is it supported by any evidence in my possession.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman read "The Times" of to-day, where he will see an account of the matter?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are the land dues which these peasants are told not to pay the equivalent of the Land Value Tax in this country?

FINANCIAL STABILITY.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 45 and 46.
asked the Prime Minister (1) what is the character of the financial assistance which he proposes should be given to the Government of India;
(2) If he proposes to formulate any conditions under which financial assistance is proposed to be given to the Government of India?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what form the proposed financial assistance to India will take?

Mr. BRACKEN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Indian finance, and particularly as to whether the Government's prospective guarantee extends to the principal and interest of all Indian Government securities; whether any payments or other benefits will be secured to Great Britain in return for the guarantee; and whether His Majesty's Government have set any limit to the contingent liability they have undertaken?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on 26th June last in reply to a Private Notice Question by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). Unless and until the need for financial support arises, it would be premature to consider the character that the financial assistance might take or the conditions to be attached to it.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to extend the system of giving financial undertakings in the hope that the undertakings will not have to be met?

Mr. BRACKEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the stock exchanges throughout the whole world are dealing under the impression that his statement defiaitely commits the British Government to guarantee these various Indian securities?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Homer.

Mr. BRACKEN: I have asked a question. May I not expect the courtesy of a reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: It does not always follow that hon. Members get replies to supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN (IMPORTED MUNITIONS).

Brigadier-General BROWN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in. view of the fact that munitions of war have recently been and still are being imported through India to Afghanistan, including guns and machine-guns, he will state by whom these munitions are imported; and what steps the Government of India are taking to ensure that they are not passed on to frontier tribes or to parties disaffected with British rule?

Mr. BENN: The munitions are imported by the Afghan Govornment. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there is no danger of the kind suggested in the last part of the question.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Can the Secretary of State for India say where these munitions come from?

Mr. BENN: That is no concern of mine. I am speaking only for the India Office, and any question concerning Afghanistan should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

FOREIGNERS (LEGAL COURTS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if ho has now any information as to whether an agreement has been arrived at for the reorganisation of the French Mixed Court in Shanghai; and whether any preparations are being made for the establishment of special courts by the Chinese Government in order that the
regulations regarding China's jurisdiction over foreigners can be put into operation as from 1st January, 1932?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): With regard to the French Mixed Court at Shanghai, the negotiations have not yet resulted in a final agreement. I understand that the Chinese Government are taking steps to prepare for the organisation of special chambers for the trial of cases involving foreigners.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not this disclose a rather serious condition of affairs; and will the right hon. Gentleman state what action he is taking in the matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: I fail to see what serious state of affairs the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir K. WOOD: Do not these proposals affect British subjects and others?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but that does not create a serious state of affairs.

SITUATION.

Sir K. WOOD: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement on the condition of affairs in China; and whether martial law has now been proclaimed at Shiuchow?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: There has been no material change in the situation since my reply to the right hon. Gentleman on 22nd June. I have no information of martial law having been proclaimed at Shiuchow.

MR. S. S. KEMP.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Minister in China has investigated the claim by Mr. S. S. Kemp for pension and repatriation expenses against the, China Merchants' Steam Navigation Company, Limited, by which he has been employed for nearly 25 years; and, if so, whether any of the money due has been now paid to Mr. Kemp?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Minister in China has furnished me with a report on this case. As a result of the efforts of His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai, Mr. Kemp has received from the company a gratuity equal to two months' salary. In addition, the
company withdrew all aspersion on his character, and gave him a first-rate testimonial. Mr. Kemp's further claim for pension and repatriation expenses could not be supported, as they were not provided for in his contract.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether this British subject is satisfied with the result?

Mr. HENDERSON: I could not say that he is entirely satisfied, but we have done the best that we could for him.

SHANGHAI.

Mr. HANNON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can indicate when the report on Shanghai prepared by Mr. Justice Feetham will be published; and if, pending publication, an advance copy can be placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) on Wednesday last.

Mr. HANNON: Will it be possible to place a copy of this report in the Library as early as possible?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already undertaken to do so as soon as it reaches this country.

MR. JOHN THORBURN.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement as to the result of the inquiries which have been made into the recent disappearance of Mr. John Thorburn at Soochow?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is thought that Mr. Thorburn was arrested at Shanghai by the Chinese military police as the result of a shooting incident which occurred on 1st June. There is reason to suppose that he remained in custody until 10th June. Since then nothing further has been heard of him. His Majesty's Minister is strongly pressing the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs to appoint a commission of inquiry to ascertain all the details regarding Mr. Thorburn's disappearance. I am now awaiting a report on the result of his representations.

Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the fact that Mr. Thorburn was last seen in the custody of the military police at Soochow, will not the right hon. Gentleman insist that a British representative shall take part in all further inquiries into this case with full powers to examine the colonel of the military police?

Mr. HENDERSON: I will take that into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of appeals that have been made to him, during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, asking him to assist in securing the release of British subjects who have joined the French Foreign Legion; and what action he has taken?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: During the past 12 months I have received two such appeals, but in neither case were there grounds on which I felt able to take action.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those appeals were from men who joined the Legion in England, or from men who joined it abroad?

Mr. HENDERSON: That is a detail which I cannot give without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Great Britain is committed to intervention in the case of a state of war arising at any time between the Russian Soviet Republic and any of the adjoining States?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As the hon. Member will be aware, all States members of the League of Nations have entered into certain international obligations. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would be bound by these obligations, but by no others, in the hypothetical circumstances suggested in the question. I would remind the hon. Member that not only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but ail the
adjoining States, have signed the Briand-Kellogg Pact renouncing the use of war as an instrument of national policy.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be desirable, in view of the complicated terms of these treaties, to issue a White Paper of some kind showing clearly what the commitments of this country are, so that the House of Commons and the country may know what preparations it may be necessary for us to make?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not see that that in any way arises out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to indicate that the obligations under the League of Nations mean intervention in the form of war?

Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Member must know what the different clauses of the Covenant mean.

BRITISH DELEGATION.

Mr. ALBERY: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cost per day per head of the British delegates and deputy delegates to the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva in 1930?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 30
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what is the estimated cost this year of the British delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations; and how this compares with the expenditure incurred last year;
(2) what is the number of deputy-delegates to the Assembly of the League of Nations this year as compared with 1928; and what is the reason for the increase;
(3) the cause of the increase of the expenses of the British delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations from £4,210 in 1929 to £5,177 in 1930, seeing that the number of delegates was the same in each case?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The average cost of accommodation amounted to £3 4s. a day for each delegate, and the daily allowance for subsistence was 30 Swiss francs, or £1 4s. The latter allowance has not been varied for a number of years. The increase in the cost of the delegation in 1930, as compared with 1929, was due partly to the fact that additional advisers were required, mainly in connection with questions relating to Palestine,
and to the increased cost of hospitality to Dominions and foreign representatives, A further increase of £240 was due to the experimental hire of British motor cars from this country for the use of the delegation, instead of the former practice of hiring Swiss cars in Geneva. It is proposed to repeat the experiment this year, but at a cost which it is anticipated will be less by £170 than last year. It has not yet been possible to complete the estimate of the cost of the British delegation in September next, but it is anticipated that the reduction in the charge for the hire of motor cars, and in other respects, will result in a saving, as compared with the cost in 1930, of at least £500. As the House has already been informed, the number of deputy delegates this year will be the same as in 1929 and 1930, namely, four, as compared with two in 1928. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government this is the minimum number required to deal efficiently with the large and growing volume of work transacted during the Assembly.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he means by the phrase "the experimental hire of British motor cars," and by the statement that he proposes to repeat the experiment? Is it an experiment to ride in a British car?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, it is an actual experiment for our delegation to ride in British cars in Geneva.

Captain CROOKSHANK: In view of the greatly increased expenditure of this delegation, may I ask whether it is just a coincidence that so many of the deputy-delegates are Labour Members of Parliament?

Mr. HENDERSON: It is more than a coincidence; it is done purposely, because we believe it will add to the efficiency of the work.

Mr. EDE: Were British cars used by delegates from this country prior to the right hon. Gentleman's going as a delegate?

Mr. HENDERSON: British motor cars had never been used until the experiment was tried last year, and we thought it would appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should be in the same position as the French, Ger-
mans and others, of having our delegates running about Geneva in British cars.

Lord BALNIEL: Was the number of Swiss cars exactly the same as the number of British cars?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ROOMS (STRANGERS' ADDRESSES).

Mr. LATHAN: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the communication he has received from the Finnish legation on the subject of the delivery of addresses in committee rooms of this House by members of the diplomatic corps?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I am in a position to state categorically that neither the Finnish Minister nor any member of the staff of his legation has been to any committee room or any other place in the House of Commons to deliver a lecture or to make a speech. I regret that a statement to this effect should have been made, thereby causing pain to the Minister, who considered that it reflected upon the manner in which he discharged his diplomatic duties.

Mr. BRACKEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that reply to the Soviet Chargé d' Affaires'?

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the Member who was responsible for the question that appeared on the Order Paper was not approached by the Finnish Legation; and whether the Government now take responsibility for the material which appears in questions that are put on the Order Paper?

Mr. HENDERSON: The answer I would give to that question is, Why did not the Member who made the statement first confirm it?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that another Member of this House had put a question down dealing with another Ministry; and, when a Member of this House receives what he considers to be authoritative information, has he not also a right to put a question on the Order
Paper? As this matter cannot be dealt with by Question and Answer, I shall ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal statement in this House upon the whole matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (ECONOMIC SITUATION).

Mr. DAY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the present financial crisis in Austria any discussions with the British Government or through the League of Nations have taken place or representations made upon the question of some form of financial assistance being granted to the Austrian state or Austrian interests by the British Government, either alone or in conjunction with other European Governments; and can he make a statement?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. The second docs not, therefore, arise. At the same time, the situation of Austria has engaged the sympathetic attention of His Majesty's Government, and will continue to do so in the hope that she will emerge form her difficulties. I would also point out that, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Moseley on the 22nd of June, the Bank of England has lately advanced ever £4,000,000 to assist Austria.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORTS (FISH AND POTTERY).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 40.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that Italian foodstuffs are now reaching destinations in England by wagons running through from Italy via Harwich and the train ferry; and whether he has taken the necessary steps to arrange that the Italian exporters should reload, in payment, North Sea fish for Switzerland and Italy in the refrigerator wagons, and pottery in the ordinary wagons?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, it is not within the competence of His Majesty's Government to control the
methods by which foreign produce importers should take payment for their goods,

Mr. SAMUEL: Has the hon. Gentleman been down to the fishing ports and the Stoke district and brought these transport facilities to their notice?

Mr. GILLETT: If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions, I will gladly consider them.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Are not the merchants and employers in the industry efficient enough to look after their own business?

INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY (PROTECTION).

Major CHURCH: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the international congress in patent law and practice to be held in Londan in the near future, if he will state what preparations for this event have been made by His Majesty's Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I presume the question relates to the next conference of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property which will be held, on the invitation of His Majesty's Government, in 1933. The preparation of the programme for this conference is now in hand.

WOOLLEN GOODS (AUSTRO-FRENCH AGREEMENT).

Major CHURCH: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House any information as to the terms of agreement between the Austrian and French Governments under which the French Government give to woollen goods manufactures in Austria a tariff preference on their goods entering France provided that such goods are made from yarns spun in and purchased from France?

Mr. GILLETT: I am not aware of any such agreement, but I am having inquiries made and will acquaint my hon. and gallant Friend with the results.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT.

Major CHURCH: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the
recommendations made by the British Science Guild to the Departmental Committee which was set up to consider the reforms of the Patents and Designs Acts and practice of the Patent Office, and endorsed by that committee in the report published 14th March, 1931?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The necessary steps are being taken to prepare a Bill dealing with the recommendations made in the report of the Departmental Committee on the Patents and Designs Acts.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of higher clerical officers employed in his Department as at the 1st April, 1931, and the number of higher clerical officers promoted to higher posts during the period 1st April, 1930, to 31st March, 1931?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The respective numbers are 65 and seven.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ALLOTMENTS, WILLESDEN.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of allotments in the urban district of Willesden, indicating which of them, if any, are owned or leased by the local authority; and how many are owned or leased by private persons?

Dr. ADDISON: According to the latest annual return received from the district council, the total number of allotments in Willesden on 31st December, 1930, exclusive of railway companies' allotments, was 1,979, of which 1,829 were on land owned or leased by the council and 150 were let direct by private persons.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. DAY: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the amount that has been expended by his Department on the production of films?

Dr. ADDISON: The total expenditure by the Ministry on the production of films, covering a period of six years, amounts to £1,828 15s. 2d.

Mr. DAY: Are the films for exhibition to the public, and, if so, where have they been shown, or were they made for the instruction of officials of his Department?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the money expended on the production of films for agricultural instruction has been very well expended indeed and has produced very valuable results?

Dr. ADDISON: I think they are very much appreciated indeed, and we have been asked for more.

FOOT-AND-MOUTU DISEASE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease did not come from an indigenous source but must have come from a foreign importation of Continental oats, straw, or butter, and in view of the danger of a further outbreak from such sources, he will impose an embargo on such imports?

Dr. ADDISON: So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no grounds for attributing the outbreak to the causes mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. The original source of infection was from cattle imported from Ireland, and I am informed by the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland that the origin of the outbreak in County Down is being fully investigated, but that they are not yet in a position to make any statement as to the cause.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this disease is not indigenous and, therefore, must have come from outside and will he not prohibit articles which may carry it into this country?

Dr. ADDISON: If I were to prohibit all articles that might carry infection, I should have to prohibit a large part of our imports.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. BUTLER: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will safeguard the employment of arable workers by guaranteeing to cereal
farmers the amount of their fixed wages bill on conditions suitable to the present emergency?

Dr. ADDISON: The method suggested by the hon. Member is not a practicable way of dealing with this matter.

Mr. BUTLER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have tried in vain to get a policy of fixing prices and, therefore, I suggest a policy of fixing rates of labour?

RESEARCH COUNCIL.

Mr. EDE: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any information as to the constitution of the Agricultural Research Council and the purposes for which it has been appointed?

Dr. ADDISON: In July, 1930, a Committee of the Privy Council, with the Lord President of the Council as Chairman, was appointed under Order in Council "for the organisation and development of agricultural research." The Agricultural Research Council has been appointed by Royal Charter "for the purpose of furthering the objects of the said Committee." The Council consists in the first instance of thirteen members, appointed either on account of their qualifications in one or other of the basic sciences underlying agriculture, or on account of their general experience of and interest in agriculture. The following gentlemen have accepted invitations to serve on the Council:

Dr. J. A. Arkwright, F.K.S., M.A., F.R.C.P.
Sir Merrik Burrell, Bt., C.B.E.
Dr. E. J. Butler, C.I.E., F.R.S.
Professor E. P, Cathcart, C.B.E., M.D., D.Sc, F.R.S.
Right Hon. Lord Richard Cavendish, C.B., C.M.G.
Mr. Joseph F. Duncan.
Sir John B. Farmer, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S.
Sir Daniel Hall, K.C.B., LL.D., F.R.S.
Sir F. Gowland Hopkins, M.A., M.B., D.Sc, LL.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.S.
Professor T. J. Mackie.
Sir Thomas Middleton, K.C.I.E., K.B.E., C.B.
Mr. Spencer Mount.
Professor D. M. S. Watson, F.R.S.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Was there to be some representative of the Rothamstead Agricultural Research School on this advisory council?

Dr. ADDISON: It is not based on representation of institutions. We have the very best people we can obtain.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, ESSEX.

Mr. BUTLER: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the extent of unemployment among agricultural workers in Essex?

Dr. ADDISON: From such information as I have, it appears that the unemployment among agricultural workers in Essex which was experienced in the early part of the year has considerably decreased and that there are now very few such workers out of employment.

Mr. BUTLER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I know personally of 70 cases of unemployment in 14 villages in North Essex?

Dr. ADDISON: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will send me particulars, and I will investigate them.

Mr. BUTLER: I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up some statistical board?

Dr. ADDISON: The difficulty is that we have not power to obtain returns.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether unemployment grants are made available for schemes of highway development on rural highways where third-class roads are breaking through for want of material, and in order to provide work for unemployed farm workers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Applications in such cases would be considered on their merits, and subject to the time-limits referred to in the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, in reply to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) on 25th Tune. I should point out, however, that grants are not avail-
able for works which are in the nature of maintenance.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly 3,000 unemployed farm workers were kept out of the local rates for half of the past winter, and will he not be a little more sympathetic towards those particular schemes?

Mr. LAWSON: That is a matter for consideration in respect of schemes put forward by the parties concerned.

STATISTICS.

Mr. BRACKEN: 75.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the number of unemployed persons who have been placed in permanent or temporary employment since he succeeded to his present office?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Johnston): I assume the hon. Member is referring to the numbers of persons employed on State-aided works specially undertaken for the relief of unemployment. The numbers of persons employed on such works, directly and indirectly, at the end of February this year was approximately 225,000. The number so employed at the end of May, the latest date for which figures are available, was about 245,000.

Mr. BRACKEN: That does not answer my question. I asked the number of persons who have been placed in permanent or temporary employment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is obviously impossible for us to give figures that are not in our possession. We do not have figures supplied to us with respect to persons employed by private persons.

Mr. BRACKEN: Are the Government afraid to publish the weekly unemployment returns?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CROSSED WARRANTS.

Mr. BOWEN: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General to what extent use is being made of the facility recently granted to savings bank depositors of making payments to third parties by means of crossed warrants; and what steps were taken to advertise this facility?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): Between 1st May, 1931, when the
facility was introduced, and 20th June, 1,127 crossed warrants payable to third parties have been issued. A notification of the facility appeared in the Press at the time of its introduction. Further, it will be brought to the notice of depositors on the new type of withdrawal form which will be introduced when the stocks of the present form are exhausted.

WIRELESS SERVICE (KENYA AND UGANDA).

Mr. ALBERY: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the transfer of the direct wireless service to Kenya and Uganda from the Post Office to Imperial and International Communications, if he will state the reason for this transfer; and if any other transfers are pending?

Mr. ATTLEE: The transfer of this service was a natural corollary to the transfer to Imperial and International Communications of the Post Office beam wireless services with the Dominions, which was recommended by the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference of 1928 and approved by the Government in the early part of 1929. The transfer of the Kenya service has been delayed partly by the necessary negotiations in this country and in Kenya, and partly owing to the need for the provision of new apparatus by the company. There is one other Post Office service to which the conclusions of the 1928 Conference might be held to apply, namely, a wireless Press service to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The question of the transfer of this service has been left in abeyance pending the settlement of the transfer of the Kenya service, and no conclusion on the subject has yet been reached.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (MIDWIVES).

Countess of IVEAGH: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in his scheme for extending the telephone system, he will consider giving special facilities to midwives, in view of the fact that many of them are unable to afford the telephone at trade rates and that a certain number of maternal deaths are due to failure to secure prompt attention?

Mr. ATTLEE: The residential rate already applies in any case where nursing is not carried on at the house and where the entry in the telephone directory makes no explicit reference to the
subscriber's profession. I regret that I am unable to make any further concession.

Countess of IVEAGH: In view of the fact that this is a matter of very great importance with regard to questions of maternal deaths, cannot the hon. Member see his way to consider the special position of country midwives?

Mr. ATTLEE: I recognise the importance of the question put by the Noble Lady, but there are a very large number of applications of a similar sort, and it is extraordinarily difficult to draw the line between them. I would rather say that the question of assisting mid-wives in this connection is more a matter for the local authorities concerned with health than the Post Office.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (DISCHARGES, NORWICH).

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General the reasons for the recent discharges of men in the Norwich district employed by the engineering department of the Post Office in laying telegraph wires and cables?

Mr. ATTLEE: The discharges have been necessary because a number of men were surplus to requirements and no further useful employment could be found for them.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Cannot the Postmaster-General carry out his recent promise to speed up and not to slow down?

Mr. ATTLEE: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTMINSTER PALACE YARD (HOARDINGS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 61.
asked the First Commissioner of Works under what circumstances, and for what purpose, a considerable portion of Palace Yard is being enclosed by hoardings; what is the cost involved; and when it is expected that the hoardings will be removed?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The enclosure to which the hon. Member refers has been made in order to provide a place for the delivery of stone and materials for the repair of the stonework of the Sergeant-at-
Arms' residence and the Clock Tower. The estimated cost of the enclosure is £200. The enclosure will be required for at least two years.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerably larger area would be available at the Victoria Gardens end of the building if some of the old stones which had been picked off the Palace were removed; and would it not be much more suitable and cause much less inconvenience if the stone-yard could have been there instead of in Palace Yard?

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Baronet will realise that in these days of economy you have to get the work done as economically as possible, and therefore we require the work necessary to be done for the repair of the tower and of the Sergeant-at-Arms' and Speaker's houses to be dealt with as close to the area as possible.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority he has built this construction?

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an alternative place for the motor cars?

Mr. LANSBURY: If anyone can suggest an alternative, I expect that those in authority will be willing to consider it. There is an alternative which, on the spur of the moment, I can think of, and that is Old Palace Yard.

Mr. BRACKEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Lord Chamberlain before he erected this eye-sore?

Mr. LANSBURY: We always consult those whom we ought to consult.

Sir B. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority he has acted?

Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, my own.

Sir B. FALLE: Who gave the right hon. Gentleman authority? [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (ALCOHOLIC REFRESHMENTS).

Mr. ALBERY: 62.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he can make a statement as to which of the public parks have been selected for facilities to be allowed for alcoholic refreshments?

Sir NICHOLAS G RATTAN-DOYLE: 63 and 64.
asked the First Commissioner of Works (1) why the recent grant of a licence to sell alcoholic drinks in Hampton Court Gardens was limited to drinks served with meals; and whether he proposes cither there or elsewhere to permit the consumption of such drinks in London parks without such restriction;
(2) in how many public parks and open spaces in London there are refreshment rooms and huts; in how many cases have licences been applied for to permit the sale of alcoholic drinks; how many licences have been granted and in what terms; and how many have been refused?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no jurisdiction over parks in London other than those parks the cost of upkeep of which is borne on the votes of my Department. There are refreshment facilities of various kinds in all these parks, except the Victoria Tower Gardens. Facilities for the sale of alcoholic refreshments have been provided for many years past in the club houses of the golf club using the course in the Home Park Hampton Court, and in the premises occupied by the Royal Botanic Society in Regent's Park. There is also a refreshment bar, where such refreshments can be obtained, in the Tower, which is under the control of the Office of Works, and a restaurant in the grounds of the Zoological Society in Regent's Park. These grounds are held on lease from the Department of Crown Lands. At Hampton Court the refreshment facilities have recently been considerable improved, and a licence for the sale of alcoholic drinks was finally granted to the lessee by the Middlesex Justices on the 1st May, after three hearings. This licence is granted on the distinct understanding that no alcoholic drink may be sold except with luncheons and dinners and inside the restaurant. I did not oppose the application for a licence as, in my opinion, it was a reasonable one. As I stated in reply to a deputation of Members of this House which interviewed me on this subject, no further action for the extension of these facilities, either at
Hampton Court or in any of the other parks, will be considered until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing the whole question.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact that the only popular proposal made by the present Government is to end in disappointment?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer Question No. 63 as to the reason why he authorises the sale of drink with meals only and not otherwise?

Mr. LANSBURY: In the first place, that was the application which went forward to the justices, and I saw no reason why I should oppose it.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENT'S PARK.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 65.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will give an assurance that no buildings shall be erected on the ground to be vacated by the Royal Botanical Society in Regent's Park without the permission of Parliament?

Mr. LANSBURY: I willingly give an assurance to the hon. Member that, in accordance with the usual practice of my Department, any such proposal will be brought to the notice of Parliament.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Has any proposal been made to erect buildings on this site?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have not heard of them, except in the imagination of people who have nothing else to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS).

Sir K. WOOD: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement in relation to the Irish Free State and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir; I have nothing to add to the replies given to previous questions on this subject.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when a communication was last received from the Irish Free State upon this matter?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not sure that any communication was received, but it is equally true to say that no useful purpose is served by putting questions.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-GRADUATE MEDICAL SCHOOL.

Dr. HASTINGS: 67.
asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made in the arrangements for post-graduate teaching in the Hammersmith Hospital?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): A Royal Charter constituting the Governing Body of the British Postgraduate Medical School and defining the functions of the governors was approved by the King in Council on the 29th June; and active steps are being taken in collaboration with the London County Council to proceed as quickly as possible with the planning and building of the school and with the adaptation of the hospital for the purposes of post-graduate medical education.

Dr. HASTINGS: Can my hon. Friend give any idea when the school will be open for teaching purposes?

Miss LAWRENCE: Not at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. VINCENT, WILLENHALL).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mrs. A. Vincent, of 3, Lower Hall Street, Willenhall, Staffordshire, has had deducted from the arrears of widow's pension due to her sums received by her from the public assistance committee prior to the passing of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929; and why this has been done?

Miss LAWRENCE: Mrs. Vincent has recently been awarded a widow's pension under Section 1 of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, as amended by the Contributory Pensions Act, 1931, with
effect from 1st July, 1930. She was in receipt of outdoor relief from 1st July, 1930, to 27th June, 1931, at a weekly rate at least 10s. in excess of the rate which she would have received if her widow's pension had then been in payment. The arrears of pension due for that period have, in accordance with Section 16 of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, been paid to the Public Assistance Authority in refund of the excess relief.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Royal Commission on Maltese Affairs have completed the taking of evidence; and, if so, when he expects to receive a report?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): No, Sir; the Royal Commission have left Malta but propose to take further evidence in London. It follows that I am not at present in a position to answer the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the amount of potash that has yet been recovered from the Dead Sea under the concession given to Mr. Moses Novamesky; whether Arab and Jewish labour is employed on these works; whether when working side by side on similar work equal pay is given; and whether the contracts for the machinery required have been given to British firms?

Dr. SHIELS: I have seen a statement to the effect that Palestine Potash Limited have produced a small consignment for shipment; but I have received no official report on the subject. I understand that both Arab and Jewish labour is employed on these works, but I am not aware of the precise terms of employment. I am unable to say where the company has placed its contracts for machinery.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Member make representations to the company to see that contracts for
machinery are placed in this country, and not as under the Rutenburg scheme?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, I should not be prepared to give such an undertaking. The hon. and gallant Member must realise that Palestine is mandated territory, and it would not be proper to give such an undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OUTPUT, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 76.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average increase of output per man shift in Yorkshire coal mines between the years 1920 and 1930?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The average output per man-shift worked by all workers employed in coal mines in Yorkshire in 1920 was 17.23 cwts., and in 1930, 23.72 cwts.

NORTH MOTHERWELL COLLIERY.

Mr. BARR: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether it has been brought to his notice that the North Motherwell Colliery, known as the New Logans, is to be closed down to-morrow, 7th July, owing to a new scheme whereby this mine will be worked jointly with Motherwell No. 4 Pit, owned by John Watsons, Limited, whether he has knowledge that the superior of that part of the mine that pays him wayleaves has terminated the lease; whether it is not the case that 200 men or thereby will immediately be thrown out of work, and possibly out of their homes; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that the pit referred to is to be closed down and abandoned. I am informed that the colliery is an old one; is approaching exhaustion, that the company owning it has gone into liquidation and that the owners of the neighbouring pit will work out the remaining coal as soon as the seams can be reached.

Mr. BARR: Is it not the case that it will take something like a year to prepare for the linking up of these two pits, and cannot the Secretary of Mines use his influence in the meantime to secure that the miners in the North Motherwell colliery shall be continued in
work until the new scheme comes into operation?

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member knows what my disposition would be in the matter, but I have no jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Dr. HASTINGS: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of nursery schools completed, being built, and sanctioned in connection with provided and unprovided schools to date, and how many of these schools in each class are of the open-air type?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): There are 44 nursery schools recognised by the Board of Education, 23 being provided schools and 21 voluntary schools. There are 11 provided and three voluntary schools in course of erection. In addition, preliminary proposals have been sanctioned for 12 provided schools. Practically all the schools now being built are open-air schools; of the existing schools the majority are planned on open-air lines and the remainder have good open-air facilities.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will extend the free places in secondary schools to 60 per cent.?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My right hon. Friend does not at present propose to increase the present normal maximum limit of 50 per cent. for free places in secondary schools. Applications from individual authorities or schools for permission to award free places in excess of this maximum are considered on their merits.

Mrs. MANNING: Is the hon. Member aware of the great amount of disappointment that exists among working-class parents this year owing to the fact that there is an abnormal number of children of 11 years of age?

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that in Scotland the educational system practically grants every seat free in the secondary schools, will the hon. Member take an example from Scotland?

Mr. JONES: I must remind my hon. Friend that last year we increased the percentage of free seats from 40 to 50 per cent. In addition to that general increase in percentage, applications from individual authorities to go beyond the 50 per cent. limit have been granted.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is not the trouble due to reactionary local authorities?

Mr. EDE: May I ask what steps the Board are taking to see that the authorities avail themselves of the increased provision that was made last year?

Mr. JONES: The decision of the Board is always sent out by circular. Over and above that I do not know what we can do.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARMOURED-CAR REGIMENTS.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet ascertained the comparative cost of the new armoured-car regiments with the mounted cavalry regiments; and, if so, how do the costs compare?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): No, Sir. An important element in the comparison of cost is the life of the vehicles, and our experience of the life of the latest types of armoured car has not yet been long enough to allow of any reliable estimate. As I informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman on 17th March, I will supply him with figures as soon as they can be given in a final form.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was told that I should get the information before the Summer?

Mr. SHAW: My answer to the hon. and gallant Member was that when I was in possession of the figures I would supply them to him. That answer still holds good.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

M. SOERMUS.

Sir BASIL PETO: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the conditions attached to
Soermus's leave to land in this country which were cancelled in March last; and by whom and for what reason these conditions were imposed?

Mr. MILLS: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, in regard to Question 81 whether "Mr." should not be added, to indicate that the person mentioned is a human being?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): When Mr. Soermus arrived at Gravesend in December last the Immigration Officer in the exercise of his discretion under the Aliens Order gave him leave to land for three months. It was this time condition which I decided in March last to cancel.

Sir B. PETO: Was the only condition attached to this gentleman's landing in this country simply that he had permission to land for three months?

Mr. CLYNES: At the time to which I have referred, I think that was so, but at an earlier stage a prior condition was made that he must not play in this country. I know no grounds on which I ought now to interfere with the freedom of movement of a very accomplished musician.

Sir B. PETO: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the importance of this question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

M. BUKHARIN.

Sir W. DAVISON: 82.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information regarding the presence in London of M. Bukharin; and whether it was by his permission that M. Bukharin obtained permission to enter this country?

Mr. CLYNES: I authorised the grant of visas to enable Mr. Bukharin and seven other Soviet citizens to visit this country for the purpose of attending the International Congress of the History of Science and Technology. He arrived in London on the 25th of June,

Sir W. DAVISON: What is the special branch of science of which M. Bukharin pretends to be a professor? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was the author of the Third Internationale Propaganda Department dealing specifically with Great Britain?

Mr. CLYNES: The answer to both parts of the question is in——[Interruption].

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask whether the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has confirmed the information that he has been giving to the House by getting into touch with the Soviet Embassy, seeing that I was told by the Foreign Secretary to get into touch with the Legation of Finland?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government refused similar facilities to Mr. Trotsky?

Mr. CLYNES: The circumstances were very dissimilar. They have been frequently stated.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Home Secretary had risen to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) when the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) intervened?

Sir W. DAVISON: May I draw your attention also to the fact that when a supplementary question is asked about Russia hon. Members opposite get up and cause an uproar in order to avoid a pursuance of the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is generally the case that there is some question which seems to have that effect upon one side of the House or the other.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask that you will give the Home Secretary permission to finish his reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the Home Secretary had given his reply.

Mr. CLYNES: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

RUSSIAN CITIZENS (VISAS).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conditions are attached to the giving of a visa to Soviet citizens for the purposes of visiting this country; and whether any declaration is required by such applicants?

Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. The conditions vary, but it is the general rule to specify the length of the visit to be paid to this country. The answer to the last part of the question
is in the negative, but all applications for visas are carefully scrutinised.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why people are allowed to enter this country as scientists who are not scientists at all?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a very general question without any specific reference.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I specify M. Bukharin?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have any power to protect distinguished visitors to this country from insults in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do all that I can in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATIONS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.

Mr. HANNON: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the suspension of debt and reparation payments suggested in the note of the American President being accepted by all the nations concerned, he will state to what extent the provisions of the Young plan will be suspended or modified, especially in the supply of German reparation coal to France, Belgium, and Italy?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): His Majesty's Government understand the proposal made by President Hoover on 20th June to involve the complete suspension for one year of all reparation payments, whether in the form of cash or in the form of deliveries in kind, including the supply of coal on reparation account.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.

Mr. BRACKEN: 84.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give a date for the publication of the Macmillan report on banking and currency?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is hoped to issue this report on Monday next.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Can the Financial Secretary say what the price will be?

Mr. PETHICK- LAWRENCE: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

UNHIRED CARS (REGULATIONS).

Mr. MATTERS: 85.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will so modify the London Traffic (Unhired Cabs) Regulations, 1931, as to establish beyond doubt the right of disengaged taximeter-cabs to pick up passengers in the principal thoroughfares to which those regulations apply?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The London Traffic (Unhired Cabs) Regulations, 1631, do not appear to me to leave any room for doubt as to the right of disengaged taximeter-cabs to pick up passengers in the thoroughfares to which the regulations apply, and I therefore see no need for making any modifications.

MOTOR COACHES (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. MILLS: 86 and 87.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) what reports he has received from the traffic commissioners of the homo counties areas of the wages and hours of drivers and conductors of passenger coaches operating through Kent;
(2) if his attention has been called to the rates of wages paid to passenger-coach drivers and conductors in the Nottingham traffic commissioners' area; and what action has been taken in the cases where a wage of 15s. weekly was being paid to conductors?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no jurisdiction in the matter of the wages paid to, or the conditions of employment of, the drivers and conductors of public service vehicles. Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides that representations on such matters may be made to the traffic commissioners by any organisation representative of the persons engaged in the road transport industry and that if the matter in dispute is not otherwise disposed of it shall be referred by the Minister of Labour to the industrial court for settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (WIRELESS ADDRESSES).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has recently expressed any protest to the Soviet Government in
respect of the wireless addresses in English transmitted from Soviet Russia and audible in this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on Thursday last to the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the Under-Secretary aware that during the; recent broadcasts there have been continual incitements to British workers to follow the example of Russia and abolish private property by revolution? Will he take steps to make further protests in this matter?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir, but I will extend the same invitation to the hon. Member as my right hon. Friend extended to the hon. Member for West Bristol.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I would ask the hon. Member to read the messages.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: In the event of the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister being carried, may I ask what Orders it is proposed to take to-night, and also what Vote will be taken on Thursday in Committee of Supply?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope we shall get the first Order on the Paper and also make some progress with the second. I do not propose to ask the House to sit very late, somewhere about midnight at the outside. With regard to Thursday, the Vote for the India Office will be put down for consideration.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 151.

Division No. 378.]
AYES.
[3.57 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hoffman, P. C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Day, Harry
Hopkin, Daniel


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.


Alpass, J. H.
Dickson, T.
Horrabin, J. F.


Arnott, John
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, Charles
Isaacs, George


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Ede, James Chuter
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Edmunds, J. E.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Barnes, Alfred John
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Barr, James
Egan, W. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Batey, Joseph
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Freeman, Peter
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Bennett, William (Battersea, south)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N)
Kelly, W. T.


Benson, G.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Blindell, James
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kinley, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gibbins, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.


Bowen, J. W.
Gibsan, H. M. (Lancs. Messley)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gill, T. H.
Lang, Gordon


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gillett, Gearge M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Brockway, A. Fenner
Glassey, A. E.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Brothers, M.
Gossling, A. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gould, F.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawrence, Susan


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine).
Lawson, John James


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Giamorgan)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Buchanan, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Leach, W.


Burgess, F. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lees, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Longbottom, A. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Longden, F.


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Lunn, William


Church, Major A. G.
Harris, Percy A.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
MacDonald, Rt. Hen. J. R. (Seaham)


Clynes, Ht. Hon. John R.
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hayes, John Henry
McElwee, A.


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
McEntee, V. L.


Cowan, D. M.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff. S.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Daggar, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Dallas, George
Herriotts, J.
Macpberson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
McShane, John James


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Price, M. P.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Manning, E. L.
Pybus, Percy John
Stamford, Thomas W.


Mansfield, W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stephen, Campbell


March, S.
Raynes, W. R.
Strauss, G. R.


Marcus, M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Marley, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W. J


Marshall, Fred
Ritson, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mathers, George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Matters, L. W.
Romeril, H. G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Maxton, James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tillett, Ben


Messer, Fred
Rowson, Guy
Tinker, John Joseph


Millar, J. D.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mills, J. E.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Vaughan, David


Montague, Frederick
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Viant, S. P.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sanders, W. S.
Walker, J.


Morley, Ralph
Sandham, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Scurr, John
West, F. R.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sexton, Sir James
Westwood, Joseph


Mort, D. L.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Naylor, T. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shield, George William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Oldfield, J. R.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Palin, John Henry
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitue)
Wise, E. F.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)



Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Albery, Irving James
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'I., W. J
Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Balniel, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nail-Cain, A R. N.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
O'Neill, Sir H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bracken, B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchan, John
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, John R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, C.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Butler, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colman, N. C. D
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Cooper, A. Duff
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Hon. Erie
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lymington, Viscount
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Train, J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon




Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wayland, Sir William A.
Womersley, W. J.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Wells, Sydney R.
Wood, Ht. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Sir Frederick Thomson.


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton



Question put, and agreed to.

CONDUCT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS.

Notice taken of the Report of the SERJEANT-AT-ARMS to Mr. SPEAKKE, dated the 2nd July, and communicated to the Mouse by Mr. SPEAKER on the 3rd July, referring to the conduct of certain Members of the House.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the indulgence of the House, in order to make a personal statement. I wish to express my deep regret that during the proceedings in the House on Thursday I allowed myself to be influenced by my feelings and the circumstances of the moment, and to act in a manner which in calm reason I know to be indefensible. I have to apologise to the House for my breach of its Order and to you, Sir, for the difficulties I created for you in the discharge of your duties as the custodian of the liberties of the House, and to those servants of the House with whom I came into conflict when they were carrying out, under orders, a difficult and disagreeable duty. My regret, Sir, is all the deeper as I have been personally indebted to you for much consideration and since I have received at the hands of the messengers concerned unfailing kindness and courtesy.

Mr. KINLEY: I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, in order that I may associate myself completely and unreservedly with what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to concur in what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said, and just to add this: In the first place, I am very sorry about the attendants, who come from much the same class of society as myself. I am very sorry about it. Let me add this other word. I sincerely say that I concur in what the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, and I am sure that all three of us are sincere in what we state.

Mr. BECKETT: I want to associate myself completely and fully with the statement made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I would like to add that my own conduct was entirely unpremeditated and was regretted immediately afterwards. Within 10
minutes of the incident concerned, I went personally to the messengers to find out whether there was any truth in the rumour I had heard that one of them was hurt, and to express my very great regret if any of them should have been hurt in any way. I am very glad to say that they responded to my regrets in a most generous spirit. I now have only to ask your permission to express my regret very sincerely to you and to the House.

The PRIME MINISTER: Unfortunately, I was unable to be here on Friday, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on my behalf, gave notice to the House that I should call attention to the incidents of Thursday. I am sure that the House will be very gratified indeed that apologies have been made. If I may say so, the beautiful, sincere and frank statement made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) might well be taken as a model. We all know what he must have felt in offering that apology. As regards the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) and for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I think it is my duty, and I believe I am carrying out the desires of the House, if I ask the House to allow the matter to remain there. The apology offered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett) might, I think, have been a little more thorough and whole-hearted, but I feel that perhaps it would be the desire of the House to take that too, and to allow the whole matter to rest where it is.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I concur with what has fallen from the Prime Minister, and I venture to suggest to him that he move that these proceedings be recorded on the Journals of the House.

The PRIME MINISTER: I waited to see whether my suggestion received the assent of the House. Then I purposed at once to move that a record of the proceedings be entered on the Journals of the House.

Mr. BECKETT: I would claim indulgence for one moment longer to say that in my first speech, in expressing myself unreservedly as agreeing with every word said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton
(Mr. Maxton), I made a form of apology which, I admit, was brief, but which, I understood, after consultation, was the right form to make. If there is anything that the Prime Minister can suggest to me that I might add, I would be delighted to add it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition in what he said? I think that the Prime Minister has taken the right course, in view of the very complete apology offered by the Members implicated. The right course has been taken, and the sooner this disagreeable incident is forgotten the better.

Ordered,
That these Proceedings be entered on the Journals of this House."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
4.0 p.m.
Perhaps a sentence will enable me to explain why the Bill is necessary—a sentence referring to the course of coal mine legislation since 1908. In 1908 was passed the principal Act, decreeing that the working day should be one of eight hours. In 1919 that Act was amended by the 7-hour Act. Then, in 1926, an Amendment was made that for a period of five years—that was the decision of the House of Commons—the 7-hour legal working day should become—I remember the emphasis that was put on the optional character of the Bill—at the option of the owners and the men an 8-hour working day. That Act was given a life of five years. On Wednesday that life terminates. In 1929, the present Government changed the law to one of 7½ hours a week with a spread-over. Now the Government have to consider what they have to do in view of the lapsing of the 1926 Act. There is no man on this side of the House, and I think not so very many on the other side of the House, who would say that seven hours a day are not sufficiently long for any man to work underground, and that it should not be the legal maximum as soon as the conditions that exist to-day permit.
Let the House clearly understand that the Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving now, is a temporary suspension of the 7-hour day. When the half-hour was taken off last year, everybody engaged in the industry was aware that there were very serious difficulties in adjustment, arising particularly out of the present state of the industry. First of all, there was organisation. That was bad. There was the question of markets and the consumption of coal, affected more particularly in the last 12 months by the very serious slump in world trade. The demand has not kept up. In addition to that, we are facing novel methods of the supply of energy and of power. Then, not to make an exhaustive survey, but only to mention three important con-
siderations that have to be taken into account on the readjustment of hours, there is the question of the new severity of foreign competition, which indicates quite clearly both to the Miners' Federation and to the Mining Association the necessity of having, not only a national arrangement, but some sort of international agreement as to standards.
Therefore, as soon as not only the Government but the two parties concerned began to consider what was to happen on the 8th of this month, the question immediately arose of what was to be the relation between hours and wages. The two could not be dissociated one from the other. It was quite possible to declare standards of wages which would be regarded by everybody as being adequate, but one of two things—and I emphasise "under present conditions"—quite evidently followed from that. First of all, a very considerable number of pits would have to be closed, or, from some source or other outside the resources of the coal trade, subsidies would be required to be found for the maintenance of high level wages. No one on any side of the House will doubt that these are conditions which would have to be faced with a reduction of the hours under the conditions which at this moment exist in the British coal trade.
In those circumstances, it was quite apparent that if an agreement could be come to between the men and the owners, that would open the best way for legislation. The Government started at the beginning of March to discover whether such an agreement was possible. We had negotiations with the men. We had negotiations with the owners. Subcommittees of the owners and of the men met together and talked things over and explained the position. I regret to say that in the end no agreement was come to, although now and again it would seem to an outsider that the partition between them was very thin indeed. Briefly, this is what the owners wanted. They wanted an undated Bill decreeing a 7½-hour day, and for that they were prepared to give the men a guarantee for one year and one year only that existing minimum wages, that is percentages and subsistence wages settled by district agreements, would not be lowered. The men pressed them to give some
sort of guarantee, by agreeing with them to set up an effective negotiating machinery, so that when the guaranteed 12 months finished, negotiations would be conducted—the negotiations would be conducted as a matter of fact before the end of that period was reached—but so that when the 12 months' guarantee finished there would still be a continued assurance of wages acceptable to the men. As far as I could make out, the men might have considered a 7½-hour day continued until such time as amending legislation had to be introduced to implement the recently made Geneva Convention, if any security were given for minimum wages, over the whole period, or, if that were impossible, on condition that the owners agreed themselves to set up an effective negotiating machinery.
That was the position when the negotiations failed, in the sense that we could carry neither side any further than it had gone. The Government regret this very much because we made it perfectly clear from the beginning that we were most averse—in fact, we even put it stronger—to there being any sort of feeling on the part of either side that we were willing to consider something else. We put before both sides this alternative, during the negotiations and while it was still possible to get agreement—that we would make ourselves responsible for agreed legislation, and if that could not be got, we could commit ourselves to nothing, except that we would have most seriously to consider whether we should do anything at all. [Laughter.] If we did nothing at all, that would have enabled the House of Commons decision five years ago to be carried out, and it is no use laughing at it. Do let us remember that this is a very serious question which requires and has required, to bring it even thus far, very delicate handling, and if the Bill which I now ask the House to accept as a temporary Measure is accepted, then negotiations will have to be carried on so that the time of peace thus declared will be used for still further promoting peace. We could do nothing else and this is what will have to be contemplated if this Bill cannot be accepted and if it does not become an Act of Parliament within the appointed time.
I feel perfectly certain that nobody wants that. The owners do not want it; the men do not want it, and I do not believe that either the House of Commons or the other place want it. If we had come down here on Thursday when the negotiations finally broke down, and said, "We propose just to allow matters to take their course," I think it would have been a most deplorable step. To use what seems to be a contradiction in terms it would have been a step of negation. The Government, after a careful consideration of the situation which was left when the negotiations had broken down, decided that it was their duty to try to give both sides further time for consideration and negotiation and at the same time to keep the industry going. The way to do that——[HON. MEMBERS: "Sixty days!"] A period of 60 days is not enough.

Mr. SKELTON: But it exists.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yea, but believe me it is not enough. I do not wish to be dragged away from my main line of consideration but if any hon. Member thinks that 60 days are enough I ask him to remember what the position will be if the House is going to leave the industry to work over time for 60 days. It is not 60 days overtime, but overtime up to one hour on 60 separate days. If the House thinks that is going to be of real use to the industry then I cannot agree with the House at all. Another fatal objection is that you would be landed at the end of the 60 days in a period when the House of Commons probably was not meeting. However, we made up our minds that something temporary ought to be done to prevent disputes immediately, and to prevent a crisis in the industry, but of sufficient duration not to handicap the industry in taking contracts, and sufficient, not only to enable the present situation to be considered but also to enable the owners, the men, and the Government to consider together the situation which arises out of the Convention which has just received approval at the International Labour Conference at Geneva.
Putting these two or three important objects before us to be pursued, we had to consider what would be a reasonable time for the extension of the existing
law—with the exception that we did not propose to use the expedient of the spread-over. The owners offered to guarantee minimum percentage and subsistence wages, as at present worked in districts. It is perfectly true that they offered that guarantee on the condition that the Bill was an undated Bill. If we have taken that guarantee and put it into the Bill without conditions I believe the owners would find no difficulty in accepting our policy, because after all, when one considers the actual situation and how things are going to work for the next 12 months, a guarantee that was possible on the assumption of a two years Bill—because the owners themselves have accepted the intervention of Geneva—a guarantee for a year on a Bill that might run for two years or 2½ years, is not very unworkable or unthinkable on a Bill that is going to run for 12 months, the Government, in the meantime, giving its pledge that it is going to do its best to get agreement between the two sides before the 12 months are over.
Therefore, the Bill the Second Reading of which I now move, in its first Clause continues the operation of the 7½-hour day for 12 months. In its second Clause, it embodies the present minimum percentage additions to basic rates of wages, and the subsistence wage rates in every district, as part of the conditions under which the 7-hour day will be extended by half-an-hour. The object of that is not to stabilise wages but to fix a bottom. The ordinary district machinery can operate for the minimum percentages upon ascertainment but the provision is that this minimum will not fall below what is at the present the district arrangement and the district agreement. In Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 are three definitions. On the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill I need only refer to the first which is the definition of "appointed day." It is required because there are three districts at present where no district agreements have been reached—where agreements are in process of being settled but have not yet been reached. These are Scotland, North Wales, and Cumberland. Scotland and Forth Wales have to transfer from the spread-over to the basic. Cumberland is in dispute regarding an award which has
not been accepted by the men, but it is hoped that this matter will soon be resolved.
The definition of "appointed day" is put in the words which will be found in the Bill for the purpose of securing this effect. Where there are district agreements working on Wednesday then those are the agreements which will be carried on for 12 months. Where, as in Scotland and North Wales and Cumberland, there are no district agreements yet fixed, but where district agreements will certainly be fixed, very shortly, then those district agreements will be the agreements carried on for 12 months. That is the purpose of the definition of "appointed day." The only other point to which I have to draw the attention of the House is in Sub-section (4) of Clause 3. This is an attempt to indicate with effect that as soon as the Government are ready to legislate on the Geneva agreement, that will be done.
But it enables me to repeat to the House what I repeated again and again in the conferences, both with the owners and with the men, that as soon as this legislation is passed and the industry is secured a normal working, a continuation of the present working, the Government will at once take up with the foreign Governments concerned this Geneva agreement, for the purpose of coming to arrangements which will tnable us, simultaneously with other Governments in Europe interested in the coal industry, to pass legislation which will secure a lower working day than exists at present either there or here. We shall press on with the ratification of the Geneva agreement and give it effect as soon as we can get the necessary arrangements with the foreign Governments.
I had overlooked, by a slight mistake in the drafting, that at the top of page 2, in Clause 2, the agreement regarding wages is stated to apply to underground workers only. As a matter of fact, it has been brought to our notice that those district agreements affect not only the underground workers, but also surface workers. Hitherto in making these agreements the two sections have never been separate, and men of practical experience in the working of mines have said that it would be a most deplorable thing if any separation were made. I feel perfectly certain
that no separation was intended, but the draft at present before the House refers to the employment of workmen underground, and that may have to be altered to bring the wording of the Bill into complete accord with the wording of the district agreements, so that the district agreements may not be violated in any way whatever.
This is not the sort of Bill that one would have liked. It is purely temporary. It does not give the owners what they wanted, it does not give the men what they wanted, but it gives them both enough to go on with; and that is the main concern for the moment from the point of view of this country's position in relation to the state of world trade and industry. It will keep the work going, it will give time to continue negotiations and, I believe, to come to agreement, and I believe that with co-operation and a mutual appreciation of the requirements and the difficulties of the trade, it will enable a more permanent settlement to be readied without involving any other crisis in the industry. It is meant to enable our good offices to be continued through a period, it is meant to allow the industry to develop itself, and it is meant to try to bring some new machinery into operation, something that does not quite exist in this industry yet, to bring it into being and to bring it into harmonious working order.

Miss LEE: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I ask him if he can give us any indication of the amount of reduction in wages that is likely to follow from the change-over to 7½ hours?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. As I said, that is at present under negotiation, but the negotiations are conducted by the owners and the men, and when the agreement is come to it will be come to by both.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: The point which the hon. Lady put is one which will be discussed and possibly elucidated to some extent during the Debate and, therefore, I shall not touch on it. I rise to make some observations on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill. I have seen much coal legislation introduced into this House, but have never seen any introduced in an air of
more general gloom and depression. I sympathise with the Prime Minister, but I am quite sure that to any Government, of whatever colour that Government may be, there is no subject more full of difficulties or which the statesman of the day is more reluctant to meddle with when he has to do so than the intricacies of the coal trade. The disaster that coal should once move be in the forefront of the political battle is one that in its turn is being felt by this Government, just as much as it has been felt by any Government or party over the last 20 years, but there are special features to-day on which I would like to dwell for a few minutes.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, very frankly, that this is a Bill which means no victory for either party. It is no victory, by their own confession, to the owners; it is no victory, as he said, to the Miners' Federation; and it is no victory, of course, in the light of the promises that were made two years ago, for the Members sitting on that side, who pledged themselves to repeal the Eight Hours Act and who will go into the Lobby to-day treading "on stepping-stones of their dead selves," but whether those stepping-stones have been going downhill or up, it must be for them to decide. I agree also with what the Prime Minister said about the question of hours, at the beginning of his speech. I do not think there is a great deal of difference really in the minds of Members, in whatever part of the House they sit. I do not believe there is anyone who, given proper conditions, would not be only too glad to sec the hours reduced. Perhaps on our side our difficulty is this, that many of us have a rather closer association with the difficulties of conducting business in these days, and we may not feel as easily as hon. Members opposite that the economic conditions will allow reductions, which for themselves we should be only too glad to see. I would say this, that we are as anxious, and I think we must be, if it should ever be our lot to sit on those benches, to get an international agreement as hon. Members opposite, and I shall say a word or two on that subject before I sit down.
The first thing that I want to make quite clear to-day is that the responsibility for this legislation is the Government's and the Government's alone. It is evident from this legislation
that they are convinced that in the present economic condition of the country and of the trade the 7½-hour day is the greatest concession that they can make. They have obviously come to that conclusion, and my chief complaint against the Government is this, that in a matter in which the House of Commons must to-day take its share of the responsibility, the House of Commons has had no opportunity of considering or discussing the difficult problems which this Bill involves. Were the House of Commons to take full responsibility and to help to shape the legislation suitable for the moment, that House ought to have begun its work weeks ago, but in the circumstances it has been unable to do so. We have had no special knowledge of what has been going on. We did not know whether the Government would legislate at the last moment or not, and indeed it was only last Thursday night, I think, that we knew that they had decided, when agreement had not been reached between the parties, to legislate at all.
I would point out to the House that on this side we have been scrupulously careful to make things no more difficult for the Government than the circumstances of the case have made them. We have asked no questions, we have not discussed the matter on the platform, and the only allusion that I permitted myself to make during these weeks was at Wel-beck, where I said that I hoped there would be an agreement, but that if there were not, it would be necessary for the Government to impose their own form of agreement. That is what has taken place now. All possibility of agreement had disappeared by the end of last week. It is not a new situation in that trade, and the Government have been compelled to act at the eleventh hour, and in the circumstances to-day I am certainly not prepared to oppose the Second Heading of this Bill. There is no alternative to it but trouble, which none of us want to see. For that reason, I say that, while the responsibility must rest upon the Government of the day, we are not here to allow the country to run the slightest risk of the undoubted economic danger that would come to it if this legislation failed to go through in time for the critical 8th July.
There are one or two features in this legislation which I think bad, thoroughly
bad, although it is quite possible that they were unavoidable in the circumstance of having left the ultimate settlement to the last moment. I think that the limitation of the term is dangerous. I think it would have been much wiser to have made the Bill run until new-legislation was required to bring our hours into line with the Geneva Convention as soon as the necessary ratification took place, because, after all, I cannot believe that there is any prospect of this Convention being ratified within the course of the next 12 months, during the lifetime of this Measure, and I should be very glad if the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines, whoever may be speaking later, would tell this House, perfectly frankly, what he believes will be the date by which we may get this ratification, which, I am sure, everyone desires. It is an important question, and by shortening the term to a year, it seems to me that you cause two difficuties, one perhaps arising out of the other.
Everybody who knows anything about the coal trade knows that, in spite of the difficult times and the bad times, no one factor has militated more against our doing business with continental countries and countries at great distances oversea than the uncertainty which has attached to deliveries from this country, by these dates that they see ahead, when fresh agreements are due and when foreign countries have learned that there is always a risk, and sometimes a probability, of stoppages; and in making contracts from a great distance, and especially with countries which have no coal of their own, the first essential for them is to get their coal and, so far as is humanly possible, to be sure that contracts will be fulfilled when they are due. Many of these contracts are longdated, and I fear very much that putting a term to this Bill, with the possibility that negotiations may not run smoothly next year—and we always have to meet that doubt and difficulty—may influence contracts, and that trade may be diverted from this country that would otherwise come.
If that be so, the difficulty naturally arises that any diversion or slackening of trade will make it more difficult for the owners to do what they certainly intend to do, that is, to continue the present rates. It will make the industry
less able to bear that weight if they lose a share of the contracts that they might get from foreign countries. That is the inherent weakness of this term of 12 months, and I do not know whether even now the Government would consider whether, if they have any date in their minds when the Convention might become ratified, it would be possible to make the Bill run until we can amalgamate with the agreed international hours. That is a point well worth considering. I have seen a great many coal settlements—though we use the term "settlement" on rather the lucus a non lucendo principle. This is not a settlement, but a temporary expedient which we all hope may be successful, and no one hopes it more than I do. "Settlement" is hardly the word to apply to an arrangement that holds for only 12 months, and holds implicit in it fresh negotiations, possibly for hours and possibly for wages.
There is another element in this Bill which I regret to see, and that is in regard to Scotland, which the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) mentioned. Scotland is in an extraordinarily difficult position under this Bill. You say in the Bill, in effect, that Scotland has to make an agreement of her own, an agreement which the Government know perfectly well must involve a reduction of wages if the hours be maintained without the spread-over, I am quite aware that the miners in Scotland—at least I understand so—have voted against the spread-over. But suppose the negotiations went on, and suppose that again it became evident that all the parties were convinced that existing rates could only be maintained by the spread-over, and suppose that in Scotland they felt they would rather have that than the alternative, then they could not have it under this Bill. They are barred from that, and it is implicit in the Bill that they have to make arrangements which, although they will carry with them the hours that they desire without the spread-over, may not carry with them the wages also. I see difficulties for that district and there is no one who will not hope that Scotland will be able to rise equal to this difficulty in which they are put by the form of the Bill.
I said earlier in these few observations which I felt obliged to make, that I hoped very much that the Government
will do all that they can to speed up the ratification of the Convention. I said one day not very long ago, that I thought one of the great problems of the next 10 or 20 years would be the reconciling of national and international interests in industry. It affects this country perhaps more than any other country in the world, and I believe—of course hon. Members opposite do not—that this reconciliation will be made more easy when all the countries of the world have the same fiscal system. [Interruption.] It is worth thinking about. I believe that one of the greatest difficulties—though I agree not so much with coal—will remain as long as an open market remains here. In many industries the solution of their difficulties will lie in international settlement. It is through international agreement that the great problem of the surpluses that-will arise from the increasing mechanisation and rationalisation of industry will be settled, and settled by that means alone. It is by an international agreement alone that we shall be able to screw up the continental level of wages to something nearer our own. It is only in that way that this problem can be dealt with. It is very true of coal.
Therefore I say, more power to the elbow of the Secretary for Mines and those who work with him in this respect. The whole House is agreed on that point. But I am frankly anxious about the working of this Bill on the grounds that I have stated. I am anxious about Scotland. I am anxious about the term, and I say for the second time that I would far rather see this Bill go on until we get the ratification of the Convention and, I hope, have some legislation that will leave the coal industry with a run of some years before it, rather than the short-dated terms which have caused Government after Government so much trouble and so much difficulty, and brought very little help or happiness to the industry. I hope in the circumstances that this Bill will go through. There are two nasty horns of a nasty dilemma. I have taken my choice, and I am sitting on the horn which has the Bill on it.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Greatly as I am tempted to tread on the tail of the Protectionist coat which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr.
S. Baldwin) has trailed on the Floor of the House, I will refrain from doing so. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe that the hon. Members on these benches agree, that this Bill is unavoidable in the circumstances. At the same time, we are all aware in all quarters of the House that it is a mere postponement of difficulties. We are drawing a bill on the future, and the difficulty will arise not so much at this moment as when the bill is presented for payment 12 months hence. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley emphasised the temporary character of this Bill and expressed a preference fur one which would have a lasting effect, he forgot that the present Government in this Measure are following precisely the precedent which he set in the Act of 1926. That was a postponement of difficulties. That Bill did not propose to revert permanently to the 8-hour day. If we are at the present date called upon to legislate, if the 8th July, 1931, is a crucial date, it is because of the terms of the Act of the right hon. Gentleman in 1926. It was his Act which makes this the appointed day, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that the responsibility for legislating now rests solely with the present Government, it is not really in accordance with the facts of the case. The present Government are obliged to legislate because the Act of the right hon. Gentleman of 1926 has now run out.
Before making further observations, let me enter, as I have often done in the House before when speaking on matters relating to coal, a protest against the misnomers which are constantly used in connection with miners' hours of labour. I had occasion to study these matters very intensively when I was serving on the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, and ever since then I have endeavoured to persuade those who speak in the House or out of it not to speak of a 7-hour day or a 7½-hour day or an 8-hour day in such terms as to lead the general public to believe that these are the hours that miners are required to work. That is not so, and if I may respectfully express a regret, it is that the Prime Minister to-day has used the figures which are in common use without at the same time emphasising the fact that fully half an hour has to be added in every case in
order accurately to describe the length of time that the miner is required to be below ground at work. Continental hours are, of course, different and are on a different basis. When we speak of the miners working an 8-hour day, everyone on the Continent would call that same day under the same conditions an 8½-hour day.
The original Act passed in 1908, in the passage of which I had some small part, although termed an 8-hour day Act, was, in fact, an Act that established an 8½-hour day for the miners below ground. At the end of the War the so-called 7-hour day, which was really a 7½-hour day, was established, and when the right hon. Gentleman passed has Act of 1926 he re-established what was, in fact, an 8½-hour day. British miners have been working longer hours, with a few exceptions, than miners on the Continent, and if there was unfair competition on account of one coalfield working longer hours than another, it was unfair competition of the British coalfield against the Continental coalfields, as our miners, as a rule, were working about half-an-hour a day longer than the miners on the Continent. The Act which we passed last year took off half-an-hour, except in Scotland, where the hours were counted on a fortnightly basis, and the question is whether the country can now afford to take off another half-hour.
There is a general consensus of opinion in all quarters and among all classes that in the present economic condition of the country as a whole, and of the coal industry in particular, we cannot afford now to curtail by another half-hour the productive time of the working miners; we cannot, in fact, meet the bill which has been presented for payment after five years, a bill which was drawn in 1926, and which would have required at this moment the hours to revert to what they were in 1926. It may be hoped that the International Convention will come into force, and that with that there will be some further reduction of hours effected, if only by a quarter of an hour. In this connection, appreciation should be expressed in the House at the success achieved by our negotiators at the International Conference. It was no easy task which faced them, and it is a very great achievement to have secured an inter-
national agreement with a view, at an early future dale, to uniform hours being established, and we should express our congratulations to the Secretary for Mines on the successful result of his labours.
5.0 p.m.
It is generally agreed on all sides of the House that this Bill must be passed into law. At the same time, I hope that we shall fully realise that the step we are taking is one of great gravity. We are legislating on these lines for the first time really, so far as any of the great industries are concerned. We are enacting that the actual ordinary rates of pay received by the workers in one of the great industries shall be stabilised by Act of Parliament. The Minimum Wage Act, 1911, dealt with a wage that was really a minimum. It was a statutory minimum above which it was expected that wages would rise, and they did in fact rise, and I think I am right in saying that the statutory minimum wage does not operate at all at the present time, and has not operated for very many years. In fact, I am not sure that it ever was actually in force. This Bill uses the term "minimum wage," and it is true that wages may rise above that minimum, but what is termed in the Bill the minimum wage is, in fact, the wage which is actually being received by great numbers of the miners. Most of the districts are, and have been, on the minimum, not the statutory minimum fixed by the Act of 1911, but on the minimum fixed under district agreements, and it is this wage, actually received now week by week by the miners, or the vast majority of them—I am not sure that it is not all; it is very nearly all—which is now to be stabilised by Act of Parliament. No one is to be allowed legally to pay less than that wage. Of course, the wage may rise above it; there is nothing whatever to prevent that under the operation of the general agreements which base wages upon the proceeds of the industry, and give a higher remuneration to the miners, but those agreements have not operated now for some years and while we hope that they may come into operation, and that the prosperity of the industry may be in some measure restored, if they do not do so the present wages now being paid will be enforceable by Act of Parliament.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: This Bill, after it is passed, will not make it illegal for a coalowner to pay a lower wage. All it will do will be to make it illegal for him to pay less than the minimum percentages fixed in districts. The standard rates of wages upon which that percentage is based can be attacked by every coalowner.

Sir H. SAMUEL: But is it not the case that these minimum district rates are now in force? I know there may be a margin which will be open to amendment and attack, but, in effect, is it not the case that the wages now being paid cannot be reduced?

Mr. BEVAN: That is not the case. The district agreements make provision for a minimum percentage to be based upon the piece-rates agreed in pits between the miners and the owners. This Bill will not protect the piece-rates, and therefore it will be quite possible for the owners, by attacking standard rates and piece-rates from pit to pit, to bring down the figure upon which the percentages are based.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for explaining some of these highly technical and very complex propositions, but the fact remains that unless the mineowners endeavour, by forcing a conflict, to upset agreements which have endured for a very long time, some for very many years, they will be obliged by Act of Parliament if they employ the miners at all, to pay the rates which are now being paid. Although I agree that this step is inevitable at the moment, I would venture to point out to the House that we are taking a step which may be fraught with very grave results in the future. At the moment we understand that we are legislating exceptionally, and in view of very difficult and urgent considerations, but the working class generally may in days to come look to our action now as a precedent in other difficult industrial circumstances and in other trades. They may be very much inclined to say in 1933 or 1935, whenever a grave dispute may come, "In July, 1931, you were able to safeguard the rates of pay of the miners by Act of Parliament. Why should you not safeguard the wages of the steel workers or the railway men by another Act of Parliament?"

Dr. SALTER: Certainly!

Sir H. SAMUEL: One hon. Member opposite says "Certainly." I am by no means attached to the doctrine of laissez faire, which held that the State should abstain from any legislation save to secure national defence or domestic order, and I believe that there are very many spheres in which State action can be usefully attempted, but I would not go to the opposite extreme and say that State action is possible and legitimate in any and every industrial and economic sphere. You cannot by Act of Parliament give any assurance that you will be able to maintain employment at any given wage. You may say that employers shall not employ people below a fixed rate, but you cannot compel them to employ anyone at that rate, and no Act of Parliament can prevent the stoppage of pits or of factories if the employers refuse to pay the rates that are fixed, just as no Act of Parliament can compel workpeople to go to work if they refuse to accept wages that were fixed by Act of Parliament. In the Middle Ages Parliament again and again tried to fix wages with the object of keeping them down. Those attempts always proved futile, and if, in these modern times Parliament endeavours to fix wages with a view to keeping them up, it will find in the long run that it will not succeed in achieving that purpose.
Moreover, there is another great danger arising from legislation of this class, and that is that rates of wages will become an issue at Parliamentary elections. It is bad enough when Parliamentary elections turn on direct financial benefit to particular classes of electors, whether in matters of pensions, rates of unemployment pay, beet sugar subsidies or any other particular advantages to particular individuals or classes, but if the rates of wages themselves come to be an issue at our Parliamentary elections in the future then the successful working of democracy will, I fear, become impossible. However, Parliament is being compelled to legislate on these lines, fraught with danger though I believe them to be, by the refusal of the mine-owners, at the last moment, to agree to an extension of the so-called 7½-hour day for a year in return for a guarantee of wages for a year. I cannot understand why the mine-owners should have refused to accept that undertaking.
Putting aside complications arising out of the spread-over and the international convention, the negotiations, in their simplest form, appear to have amounted to this: The owners were anxious that the miners should continue to work what is called the 7½-hour day. The miners were anxious that their wages should not be reduced. The miners said to the owners "Guarantee our wages for a year and we will work your hours for a year." The owners said in reply, "Work our hours indefinitely and we will guarantee your wages for a year." The position taken up by the mine-owners seems to have been an unreasonable one. The agreement should have been a guarantee of wages for a year in return for the longer hours for a year, or else an indefinite guarantee of wages in return for an indefinite continuation of the longer hours. It is quite true, as the mine-owners have said in a statement recently published, that the time-limit of 12 months involves a new crisis in 12 months, but the time-limit consideration applies to wages as much as to hours, and with a wages guarantee for 12 months only the crisis would have occurred on that basis as well.
My last point relates to the question of national negotiations. The Miners' Federation have pressed that whenever the present agreement comes to an end a new agreement should be negotiated nationally, but for some years the Mining Association, that is, the mineowners, have refused to enter into negotiations on a national basis in the manner they used to in days gone by. I can well understand that in 1926 and in the few years preceding that date the patience of the mineowners was tried almost beyond endurance. [Interruption.] I know the patience of the miners was tried also, but I am compelled to say that in the leadership of the Miners' Federation statesmanship was very much lacking in those years. I am not apportioning blame, but that is undoubtedly a fact. The whole matter was investigated by the Royal Commisison, which went into it with the greatest care and came to a unanimous conclusion on this matter as on other matters. We recognised that as there has been in the past so there will have to be in the future district variations in wages and in conditions arising out of the particular conditions in the various districts, but we also held most strongly that there
ought to be national co-ordination and supervision of all district agreements in order that one district should not be under-cut by another district, and the standards of the whole country lowered to that of the most backward district. We urged that there should be an industrial board, consisting of representatives of employers and employed, with an impartial, neutral element, to decide these matters. That was ultimately embodied in the Act of last year, but the owners never accepted that view, either in 1926 or when the Act of last year was passing through Parliament. However, they have now come very close to it, for it was announced in the Press a day or two ago that the mine-owners had written to the Miners' Federation saying this:
The Mining Association has no power to interfere with any district arrangement as to wages or conditions of employment. The Mining Association is prepared to meet the Miners' Federation periodically, say every three months, to consider and discuss the economic conditions of the industry and all matters relative thereto. For this purpose there should be set up a small joint committee of the two bodies.
And they added this note:
In sending you the enclosed formula I am requested to inform you that it is under-stood there will not be excluded from the discussions such matters as we have dealt with at our recent meeting.
There they have come very close to a recognition of the necessity for national negotiations in dealing with national matters. I think the impartial outside observer would be inclined to ask why all this need for formulas and precise definitions, as though they were negotiators representing hostile countries and endeavouring to patch up some temporary agreement to avoid war. Why should local affairs not be settled in the district and national affairs be settled nationally? Why should not the mineowners and the representatives of the Miners' Federation sit down and decide the conditions of the joint industry from which all of them have to derive their livelihood, and agree frankly and cordially in an open friendly spirit? Why should they not all sit round a table as they used to do generation after generation in days gone by, and settle these matters in an amicable spirit? However unwilling some of us may be to pass legislation of this kind,
and however anxious we may be as to its future results, in existing circumstances I think that all parties, and probably both Houses of Parliament, will agree if not with complete unanimity, at all events with substantial unanimity, that legislation on these lines is inevitable in the circumstances of the day.

Mr. EBENEZER EDWARDS: It is not my intention to enter into details upon the questions which I have been discussing for the last few weeks. All I wish to say, in short, is that if these proposals are rejected, it means a stoppage in this industry. I have played my part in these negotiations. It is not my intention to say a single word derogatory to the employers. After all, this is a political discussion in this House, and we are all agreed that, if this industry has to be built up on a sound basis, we must negotiate in the best possible spirit with those with whom we shall have to work in the future. I do not think that there is any necessity for a crisis arising at the end of 12 months. I desire during the short time at my disposal to deal with the great issues with which we have been faced. Let me make it quite clear at once that this Measure does not satisfy the miners. There is nothing about the concessions in this Bill calculated to make the miners jubilant. Our claim is for a 7-hour day and a minimum wage, and hon. Members can well understand the dissatisfaction of the miners in regard to a Measure of this kind.
It is quite true that this Bill is a temporary measure, because the employers and the miners have failed to come to an agreement. I want to make it quite clear to the House that the responsibility for that failure does not lie with the Miners' Federation. Since the Baldwin Act of 1926 we have had no national machinery to deal with the difficulties which are constantly arising in this great industry. The present situation is the result of the legislation which was passed in 1926, but I will pass by the responsibility for the break-up of that national machinery. There has been no real contact since 1926. I want to put before the House the state of things as far back as 25th March this year, when the Miners' Federation asked the owners to set up a sub-committee to survey all the implications of the national position
and the circumstances that would arise in July. I am not going to make any criticism of individual employers, but the answer of the employers to our request was that they had no power to negotiate if wages were involved as one of the implications of the situation that would arise. The only thing they were prepared to do was to wait to see the position which arose at the Geneva Convention. I have read the employers' manifesto, and I am astonished at many of the declarations contained therein, because it was the refusal of the employers to meet us in a sub-committee to consider all the implications that brought about the present situation, and this took place prior to the miners meeting the Government to consider the implications of the minimum wage. We had no contact because of the owners' refusal to consider the national situation.
What was the next step? We have been told that the Government are supporting the miners. Let me make it clear at this point that we were told, in reply to our request for a minimum wage, that wages must be related to hours. I will pass rapidly over the weeks that intervened, not because they are not important, but because of the limited time for this Debate. On the 5th, the 11th and the 19th of June, we had meetings with the owners and that meant three meetings in three weeks. Who was responsible for that? Certainly not the Miners' Federation. An adjournment of the meetings took place to give an opportunity of consulting the districts as to how far the owners' delegates could go, and every effort was made by the Miners' Federation, along with the employers in our national negotiations, to hammer out the situation as far as it related to the question of hours and wages.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has read out the exact wording of the offer of the employers. The offer made by the owners was that for an indefinite continuation of existing hours they would give a guarantee of the existing minimum percentages to wages plus a subsistence wage for 12 months, in a situation which had no relation to the suspension of the 7-hour day. I ask hon. Members of this House, irrespective of party, to put themselves in our position when we are negotiating for the men.
We are not asking for any unfair concessions. It cannot be said in common fairness that we are asking for too much. The owners are taking everything and giving nothing in return. They are asking for an unlimited concession in hour's and a limited concession in regard to wages. We are not asking for an extravagant wage; in fact, we are merely asking for existing wages, which I defy any Member of this House to show are too high. There is every justification for the demands which we are making.
Let me give a concrete case. Here you have a subsistence wage applying to over 40 per cent. of the adult men in one of our northern coalfields, of 6s. 6½d. a day, and the average number of days last year was slightly over five—5.04. If they work the maximum number of days, with no ill-health and so on, that would represent 32s. 8¾d. In no industry are there such heavy deductions from wages as in the mining industry. On a wage of 32s. 8d., they average about 3s. 6d., but, taking them at only 2s. 8d., that means that there is 30s. left for the week. But the men in that coalfield, like the men in this House, have to live seven days, and not five days, a week, and, when you divide that sum by seven, it means that the wage for these men is but little over 4s. 3d. a day. Allowing, for the two adults in the house, three meals a day at 6d. a meal, that means 3s., so that there is 1s. 3d. left for all the rest of the family, and, if there are three children, that amounts to less than 2d. a meal. That is not allowing for clothes, there is no question of household utensils, nor of anything for the church collection—there is nothing even to buy newspapers.
It can be understood that the men in the mining areas are not only down physically, but down morally. What must these men feel, looking upon their relatives as the husbands in this House look upon theirs, when they see their wives and children having to live on this pittance? It is no wonder that there are oases where men wish that God would take away the spark of life that He has created, so that the misery may end. This Measure is a temporary Measure. It is a truce under existing conditions for 12 months, without the spread-over in Scotland. It is merely a truce. The alternative is a stoppage, and, speaking
for the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, I say that we do not want a stoppage. We want to utilise from now onwards, and I take this opportunity of making the offer to the employers now—we want to utilise from now onwards the two great national organisations so that we may not only maintain the existing conditions in the industry, but, by joint conscientious and considered action, we may be able to build that industry higher towards the day when it can give to our men a living wage—a real wage on which they can live.

Major COLVILLE: It is a very heavy responsibility that rests on the House this afternoon. We are asked to pass this Bill as an emergency Measure. It is a Bill which deals with the wages and hours of very nearly 1,000,000 workers in this country, and we are asked to rush through this important question in three or four days, because the Bill was only made available for Members on the afternoon of Friday. We have spent weeks in this House discussing a land taxation Measure which affected the employment of no one, and yet we are asked in a few hours to examine all the questions which arise in relation to the livelihood of many thousands of men. There is no need to hold a pistol at our heads in this matter. The Prime Minister himself has clearly said that 60 days could have been granted if the Government were so minded. I understood him to say that 60 days was not enough, and that, if we thought that 60 days was enough, we were wrong. I say that 60 days are better than three days, and provision might well have been made for a longer period in which to consider what would be the outcome of passing this Bill in its present form.
In the first place, I think it is agreed that there is a general recognition among all parties that it is not possible to return at this moment to the 7-hour day. It would be very easy for us to twit the Government with election promises and so on in regard to that matter, but that would get us nowhere. [Interruption.] What we want to visualise is the situation as it is to-day, and we have that common agreement that at the present time we cannot return to a 7-hour day because of the economic position which exists. Let us examine the grave state of the coal trade. There are
about 100,000 more miners unemployed since the present Government took office. I am not blaming them for that, but am merely pointing out that during the time they have been in office, owing to various circumstances, the number of persons unemployed in that industry has gone up by almost 100,000. The market at home is grievously contracted. The industries which use coal—the heavy industries and others—have been passing through a time the like of which we have not seen in our lifetime. The market abroad is most fiercely contested by other exporting countries. I think I am right in saying that the competition has never been more severe than it is at the present time. Why, therefore, should we be asked to rush through a Measure in a few hours which affects this great industry? It is at least entitled to the careful consideration of every Member of the House.
What are the points in favour of and against this Measure? Briefly, the point in favour of it is that, in those districts where 7½-hours are being worked at the present time, the men will not be asked, on account of the automatic shortening of the day which would take place if no legislation were passed, to suffer an automatic reduction of wages. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said that we were responsible for that automatic shortening of the day, because we fixed the date. I am not going into that question, but would merely point out that the Conservative party at any rate laid down a five-years limit, while the present Government are proposing a one-year limit. If a five-years limit were proposed at the present time, the objection of uncertainty would at any rate be, not removed, but postponed. That is the only point that I am going to make in favour of the Bill.
Coming to the points against the Bill, I would say that it fixes the date for the next crisis, in many parts of Great Britain, at a year from now, and it fixes the date for a crisis in Scotland immediately. That is a very strong indictment against the Bill, but I am prepared to justify it. Take the general position in Great Britain. It has been said already, and I only repeat it briefly, because the points are well known to all, that the fixing of a time limit, by causing uncer-
tainty, has a bad effect upon contracts, both at home and abroad. I do not merely believe that to be the case; I know it to be the case. This uncertainty has been a considerable factor in causing cancellation of contracts and withholding of buying from abroad. Let us realise that by fixing this relatively short time we have added another difficulty to those of this struggling industry in relation to the export market. With regard to the Geneva agreement, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen congratulated the Secretary for Mines on his achievement. The congratulation was received with cheers by many hon. Members, and rightly, but let them have some faith in their achievements. If they believe in Geneva at all—and, surely, we all believe that something can be done on those lines—let them show more faith than by placing this time limit one year hence. Surely they believe that they can get ratification of the arrangements at Geneva within a measurable time, and that would be fixing the date in the proper way, because it would be a date on which there was an international understanding with regard to reduction of hours, and it is only by international understanding that we can give the British coal trade, all sections of which stand to win or lose by this arrangement, a chance to keep its world position. Every Member of the House knows that that is the case.
I have said that the crisis would come within a year in the country in general, and at once in Scotland. It is generally known that the Coal Mines Act of last year contains a provision as to a permissive spread-over of hours, so that the statutory number of hours can be worked over a fortnight, that is to say, 11 days of eight hours and a free Saturday. That provision was qualified by a veto which could be used either by the Mining Association or by the Miners' Federation. When that Measure became law, several districts—I am speaking now particularly of Scotland—elected to work the spread-over. In Scotland they decided to carry on the spread-over rather than endure a reduction of wages. The Miners' Federation objected, and there was some little discussion at first, and then the objection was, if not withdrawn, at any rate not pressed, so that Scotland continued to work the spread-over and to retain sub-
stantially the old rates of wages. It had been established that in Scotland, on account of the high level of mechanical operations in the mines, under the spread-over arrangement at least 8 per cent. more wages could be paid than with a reduction of half-an-hour on the day, and, therefore, the miners in Scotland decided to carry on and work 11 full days and alternate Saturdays,
That was carried on daring the winter, without complaint and in a good atmosphere between masters and men. At the end of March, however, the Miners' Federation definitely exercised their right to apply a veto, and the other districts which at that time were working the spread-over then dropped out—[Interruption]—except North Wales. I am not going into the settlements that were made, but in almost every case they meant a reduction of the wages of the men. Scotland decided to carry on, and, since the end of March, has been carrying on, technically illegally, with the spread-over; but there was no prosecution. Why was there no prosecution? Because the Government and the Law Officers of the Crown knew very well that the overwhelming body of men in the mining industry in Scotland wanted to be left alone to work their spread-over and have more money; and they also realised, though they seem to have forgotten it to-day, that it was of national importance to Scotland that the spending power of these men should not be reduced, and that their wages should be retained at as nearly as possible their present level. On any day a miner could come to the shaft and demand to be taken up; but no such thing happened, and there was no prosecution. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would have happened?"] He would have had the whole might and power of the law of this country behind him. The Government know perfectly well that that is the case.
What is the position to-day? I asked a question recently which brought it out. Without going into actual rates and percentages, the position is that for that period the general average weekly earnings of the Scottish miners have been the highest of any district; but, even so, can anyone suggest that they were getting too much money? The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. E. Edwards) devoted
part of his speech to a very powerful appeal that the men engaged in this hard industry should get a decent wage. I agree with every word of what he said. I live in a mining county and represent a constituency with many miners in it, and I fought in a battalion in France that was largely made up of miners. The miner's is a hard job in comparison with other industries. If we can reduce his hours we are entitled to do so. We can, at least in Scotland, ensure that he gets a better wage than he will do under the Bill. The position at present is that, if the Bill passes in its present form and no provision is made for the continuance of the spread over, a new agreement will have to be negotiated and it will almost certainly involve a reduction of at least 5s. per week in average earnings. There are approximately 85,000 miners in Scotland. A reduction of 5s. a week will come to £20,000. That will be lost to the miners' homes if the Bill passes in its present form. Why reduce the purchasing power of this important section of the working classes by 5s. a week at least by passing a Measure which has no provision made in it for working the spread over? That is a question which Members of the Government representing Scottish constituencies will find it difficult to answer.
The hon. Member for Morpeth said we must have a national machine. If we had a national machine in Scotland we should be left alone to work the spread-over that we have and retain the present rates of wages. The trouble arises because of the interference with the Scottish machine by the Miners' Federation, who have exercised a veto which they have shown they have used to the detriment of a great section of miners by enforcing that this spread-over arrangement should be dropped.
I am afraid I have been contentious although I tried not to be, but I plead with the Government to consider very carefully, before they pass this Bill in its present form, what the effect will be in that great mining district of Scotland. It is a great responsibility that we take to-day. It may be said that the owners could pay the same rates by raising the price of coal with the powers that they have under the Coal Mines Act. That Act gave full powers to fix prices, and it has been suggested in certain districts
that they have not made full use of these powers. It may be put forward that the coalowners in Scotland could make fuller use of those powers and get prices up and by that means avoid any reduction at all, although working a shorter day.
The Secretary for Mines knows the shale oil industry, and so do I. Can that industry afford to pay more for its coal—and it uses any amount of it? There are other great industries that I know well and that he knows too. Can they afford to pay more for their coal? Can that market be screwed up? Do not use that argument to me that coal can be raised in price and thus a reduction in the men's earnings be avoided. Before we leave the Bill we have to come to a decision which will affect the homes of many people. It may be a wise or a foolish decision, but unfortunately it is going to be a hurried decision. I once more plead with the Prime Minister to consider what will happen if the Bill is passed in its present form.

Miss LEE: I have listened with mixed feelings to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's expressions of indignation and friendship, and I could not help feeling that it was an infinite pity that his regard for the miners should be so belated and that his sentiments of friendship and good will should not have found practical expression in the years of suffering through which they have passed during which the party with which he is associated had ample power to prevent the position in which the miners find themselves.

Major COLVILLE: Does the hon. Lady know that I moved the spread-over Amendment, the result of which is that the miners in Scotland have had higher rates of wages than they would otherwise have had?

Miss LEE: I shall come to that. I want to tax the hon. and gallant Gentleman's memory back a few years before last year's legislation. During the War years, the mines made profits of £135,000,000, equivalent to their capital value. I have here the profits per ton of coal made in the years following the War, and there, again, you find that high dividends and ample profits were the order of the day. During those years you had the Sankey Commission and the Samuel Commission and well-informed
people of every shade of political opinion who were examining the conditions inside the mining industry and presenting the House and the country with ample information showing that the mining industry could not be conducted on a lasting profitable basis unless the owners themselves had something more in their conception of management than merely making profits from year to year, unless they were planning ahead and were united amongst themselves to make the industry that organised and scientific unit which they must have known it would require to be in order to meet international competition in world conditions. I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) made no reference to the very valuable and useful information given by his committee where they gave example after example showing obsolete working inside the industry, showing overhead charges higher than they ought to be because of the conglomeration of small ineffective concerns, about 1,600 individual companies in this modern world, with trade going on vaster and ever vaster scales, carrying on in their own separate way and refusing to amalgamate and to make the most even of the international conditions in the industry.
You are apt to get the point of view which says: "Laissez faire, the economics of the last century, are good enough for us. We can manage our affairs with perfect confidence. We do not want any quota scheme, any amalgamation or any marketing. Just allow us to carry on." It is impossible for the House of Commons and the country to expect that there is going to be anything else but one crisis after another inside the industry, that there is going to be anything else but prolonged suffering, until we bring forward proposals which are commensurate with the magnitude of the problem we are dealing with and until we make it impossible for a group of private citizens—colliery owners—to dictate the terms under which the industry shall be carried on. I very greatly regret that we should be patching up a kind of truce, and a sorry truce as far as Scotland is concerned, instead of doing the work which hon. Members, with their very much greater opportunities, neglected to do, that is, to put the industry on a proper, unified, scien-
tific basis under national management and control.
There are hon. Members opposite who want to say, "Are you going to claim that, if you organise the industry, you will thereby be able to give better wages and improve the working conditions?" All of us are prepared to make that claim, and at least we are entitled to ask that, if we know the wages of the workers, we ought to know the money that has been paid to directors. I asked that question the other day and could be given no information. We ought to know how much of the profits of the industry is coming from by-products. We ought to be able to examine every detail of the resources inside the industry. We shall never be able to do that properly until we have it under proper national control.
Now I come to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interjection. He asked me to remember that he was responsible for introducing the spread-over Clause last year. Scotland is very largely an exporting area.

Major COLVILLE: What proportion of Scotland's coal is exported?

6.0 p.m.

Miss LEE: Roughly speaking, a third of the coal produced in Scotland is for export purposes. That is a very considerable factor. The exporting districts were put in an absolutely impossible position last year, when this House in its wisdom decreed that there was going to be no special levy for these exporting districts. My view is that something very much more than that is required. Even that would not have been sufficient, but at least it was the absolute minimum in the legislation we had last year which would have been of any use to the exporting districts. I am sorry that the Prime Minister could not tell us exactly what this Bill is going to mean in wages to the miners of Scotland. I know he will appreciate as much as anyone in the House that that is the dominant question in every miner's home. A representative of the Miners' Federation has already made a very moving speech in which he showed his emotion and his concern about the suffering that this wage legislation is imposing throughout the country. The feeling in Scotland is that the miners are at rock bottom, and have been living at rock bottom for some considerable time, that
the mining industry has been the puppet of Liberal Governments, because of the reports which they did not implement. That may be one reason why, in spite of all the eloquence and the great influence in the House of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the miners in my constituency sit dumb and hostile whenever his name is mentioned. They do not forget the opportunity he had and they do not forget the subsequent years. Hopes were held out to them, and they have always been dashed. At this point of time they are living absolutely on the minimum condition. They have been living for years with no money in the house to renew furniture and clothes, and even food has been scanty and of inferior quality. And the one thing the miners in those homes have had, especially since the advent of the Labour Government, has been hope, that at last their problems were to be faced, not only by industrial methods but by bringing to the assistance of the trade unions all the power that they could give them politically. They believed that generally we were really going to begin to tackle their problems. There are many Members on this side of the House who owe their presence here to-day to the belief among mining communities that they cannot solve or tackle their problems merely by negotiations regarding wages and hours such as the mineowners are willing to concede or the trade union representatives are willing to agree to. If this House does not realise it, every miner realises that the problem must be tackled, first and foremost, by nationalising the mines, and that we must exploit every possible means inside the industry itself in order to give him a living wage. We believe that if we could do that, we could give him a living wage. But we also believe that if we could not do that there would still be a responsibility upon the State. If the State wants coal to be produced, and if we require coal to maintain our other industries, we should not allow the general economy of this country to be based upon sweated labour.
I have heard hon. Members waxing indignant about conditions in Russia. I wish they would come to Lanarkshire and Fifeshire. I wish they could see the conditions under which their fellow countrymen and their countrywomen are work-
ing and living, for then, I believe, some of them at least would join with us in the view that we simply could not go on avoiding our responsibilities, in the hope that something would turn up, knowing all the time that nothing would turn up. We are faced with a situation in the House of Commons to-day that we are being forced into the Division Lobby at the point of the bayonet, not because of something in which we believe, but simply because we know the alternative. We know that a conflict would be a calamity, but we are not getting on with what some of us at least consider to be the distinctive function of Socialists in this House, namely, to carry this mining conflict beyond mere trade union negotiations and to assist in building up trade union powers to the very maximum, and to see that whatever happens the miners in this country are not underpaid. They cannot go on with their present rates of wages, and our task is to try to improve those rates.
The Prime Minister to-day said that we cannot separate wages from hours. I agree with him. We on these benches specially emphasised that point last year, and that is why, when the Coal Mines Bill was being introduced into this House, we made a special point of saying that if the Measure was to be of real service to the miner we must protect his wages. Poverty is so acute in the mining homes and mining villages, that if you ask the average miner whether he would have a reduction in hours and also a reduction in wages, or whether he would go on working his present hours without any reduction in wages, every time he would tell you, "Whatever we can stand, we certainly cannot stand a reduction in wages." It is not fair to put the miner into the position of having to make that very cruel choice. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen has already explained that a 7-hour day means at least a 7½-hour day and that a 7½-hour day, for which we are now legislating, means at least an 8-hour day, and miners do not work those long hours for pleasure. They work because of bitter necessity.
I am sorry, indeed, that to-day we should merely be calling a kind of truce in our mining difficulties and that once again we should merely be postponing the big issues, instead of the House of Commons facing up to its responsibility
and taking hold of this problem by nationalising the mines and guaranteeing the miner a living wage, to which every man and woman know that they are entitled. We should tackle this thing, not in a mood of depression, but in a mood that makes us feel that whatever the consequences to ourselves or the party, we are tackling a big responsibility in the way the miners expect us to tackle it. If we went down in the fight we should still have this gallant body of men and women behind us, and in going down we should only come back again to carry on the fight to success.

Colonel LANE FOX: I am sure that the House listened with great sympathy and interest to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee), but I suggest to the hon. Lady that in allowing the expedient of the spread-over to go by the board, by supporting the Government, is not a kind and generous action to Scottish owners. I do not wish to follow her along the lines as to how the coal industry might be reorganised. I regret—and I think all will regret—that once again the industry has had to come to the House of Commons. It is the one great industry in the country which, when it is up against difficulties, has always to come to the House of Commons in the end. It suffers from the bad tradition of the past by which it has always been the subject of discussion, legislation and action by this House. I know that with that precedent behind us it would have been impossible to have avoided coming to the House on the present occasion, but I should be glad indeed if some Government could be found to say, "Go and settle your own affairs; we will have nothing to do with you,"
I know that both sides of the industry were very anxious to avoid a stoppage. Nobody who has followed the controversy that has been taking place could have failed to see that whatever may be the conditions—and they were very different from those which obtained before the great stoppage of 1926—there was certainly no desire on this occasion on the part of either side to precipitate a stoppage. I believe that if the Government had had the strength to make it clear to the industry that they were not going to come in and take part in the struggle,
it would have been possible for the two sides to have come to some agreement. The effect of the House of Commons constantly coming into these controversies is absolutely fatal, because it means that negotiations are constantly vitiated by politics. The two sides of the industry naturally think of the party which they would like to be in power, and the chances of dealing with the problem on its merits are severely interfered with. It is a great misfortune that the industry should have to come here. At any rate, we have been assured that both sides are disappointed by the result. If that has the effect of making them realise that the House of Commons is a bad negotiator in industrial disputes, something at least will have been gained as a result of this unfortunate Bill.
It is a thoroughly bad Bill in principle. I agree that it has one merit in that it will, for a short time at any rate, postpone a crisis which otherwise might have occurred. If you once begin legislating to fix the wages in one particular industry, where are you going to stop? How soon will it be before other industries come to the House of Commons and expect their rates of wages and hours to be fixed for them? It is inevitable that you cannot set a precedent of this sort without creating serious difficulties in the future. What is going to be the effect in our Parliamentary elections and for democratic system in this country? Once you allow it to become a matter in which one party can pit itself against another at an election and say what rates of wages and hours are to be maintained, you are holding out a prospect which is likely to have a very serious effect upon the Parliamentary and political history of this country. I believe that the less you bring politics to bear upon industrial questions, you will have a far greater chance of securing a satisfactory settlement. The Bill has not even the merit of effecting anything like a lasting settlement.
We have heard a great deal of the international settlement which the Secretary for Mines has been instrumental La pushing through—and I give him credit for the work he has done—but it is clear that the Government have no faith in that settlement. If we are to hear so much of the Convention and the great success it has been and the great benefit it is
going to be to this industry, how is it that the Government are not prepared to pin their faith to it in a far greater degree than they have shown their desire to do to-day? I agree that in finding a solution of our mining difficulties we must try to bring about equalised conditions in foreign countries and assist in raising their standards in order to maintam our Own. But the moment the Government have succeeded in doing something on those lines, they have brought in a Bill which shows that they can have little faith in what they have done. What are the other countries going to think of our implementing the convention, and what chance is there of their believing that the Government really mean business? The time limit will have a most unfortunate effect. We have been told that there is no need to anticipate a crisis. The mere fact of having a time limit means that both sides will make preparations, and that inevitably there is a feeling of unsettlement and unrest from which you cannot get away. If you had left it with the mere limit at the end of the operation of the Convention, you would have had an agreed settlement in sight; you would have had an agreement at the end of the period. You would not have had a crisis or a conflict but a real settlement based on an agreement by a combination of nations in regard to coal legislation. I believe that to put a short time limit of this kind into a Bill when you had a golden opportunity of achieving an agreed settlement at the end of the period, will be disastrous. I only hope that the Secretary for Mines will give us some reason to believe that there really is some chance of a settlement coming about and being operated at any rate by the great countries of the world. Otherwise, all that is happening to-day in the gloomy passage of this Bill, which everybody agrees is merely a wretched expedient, will, I am sure, cause very great disappointment throughout this country, and throughout the world.

Mr. SKELTON: I am anxious to bring before the House once more the situation which will be reached in Scotland if this Bill passes into law without the addition of the spread-over conditions. I wish also to make my protest against the speed with which it is attempted to bring the Bill into operation. I agree with much that has been said on the point that 60 more days will be inadequate for the final
deliberations between the two sides of the industry, but I suggest that some of the 60 days that are available to let the industry continue as it is now, should be used for a full and proper discussion in Parliament of this Bill. Whether the discussions be long or short, and whether the form of the Title of the Bill makes it in order or out of order, it is absolutely essential that before the House passes from this Bill it should realise to the full what is involved for Scotland if, during the temporary period covered by the Bill, no provision is made for the continuation of the spread-over.
With inevitable differences of opinion on certain broad matters, I listened with great interest and agreement to the speech of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee). She spoke, with the knowledge that comes from a mining constituency in Scotland, of the desire of the Scottish miners, whatever other alternative they may have to face, not to face the alternative involved in a reduction of wages. It is certain that unless we have in this Bill a provision whereby the 7½-hour day may be spread over the fortnight, a reduction of wages there must be. I fully understood the anxiety with which the hon. Member questioned the Prime Minister as to whether he could throw any light in regard to what in Scotland is a most urgent problem. I do urge the Government to take their courage in both hands in regard to this matter—if it be out of order, as I take it to be, for such an Amendment to be introduced in this House—to indicate in their reply that for the year over which this Bill is to extend, the spread-over shall he introduced.

Mr. FRANK LEE: What does the hon. Member mean by "spread-over"?

Mr. SKELTON: I think we all know what the spread-over is.

Mr. LEE: It is an 8-hour day.

Mr. SKELTON: Call it an 8-hour day if you like. The fact remains that it is 11 days spread over the fortnight. The result of the spread-over is that it prevents the decline in wages which all are agreed is inevitable in Scotland. I do not believe that it is right on any ground, at any time, when times are so hard and conditions are so severe, either in the mining industry or any other industry to take any step which will reduce
wages. It is not right. I believe the people of this country will say that the Government are wrong if they do not take all steps possible to prevent the reduction of wages that must follow the disappearance of the spread-over. Let the House recollect the position of Scotland in this matter. Let mining Members recollect that Scotland depends upon the heavy industry far more than does England. On more than one occasion I have said in this House that we have far fewer secondary industries and that our chief industries are agriculture and the heavy industries. Everybody knows the state of the steel trade and the shipbuilding trade. If you strike another blow at the earning power of the coal trade, you will undoubtedly be thrusting Scotland further down into the morass of depression.
Taking the most recent figures of unemployment in Scotland, they are most definitely worse than in England. Take the figures of the amount of unemployment in Scotland as compared with England on 15th December, 1930, the most recent figures that I have. In Scotland the men unemployed was 27 per cent. and in England it was only 19 per cent. I leave out the decimals in both cases. That shows how peculiarly heavy has been the blow to Scotland, and the depressed state of the heavy industries. It shows how hard industrial Scotland has been hit by the present conditions. I cannot believe that this House or another place, when we are dealing with this temporary Bill, will turn its eyes away from any expedient whereby the heavy depression of Scotland can be prevented from becoming worse.

Mr. E. EDWARDS: If we do not pass this Bill, will not Scotland go back to the 7½-hour day?

Mr. SKELTON: I am not suggesting that this Bill should not pass. I am suggesting that this Bill should include the spread-over.

Mr. POTTS: Why?

Mr. SKELTON: For the reasons that I hope I am giving clearly. For reasons that to me, as a Scotsman and as a Scottish Member of Parliament, seem to be vital. For the reasons that I believe the Government, at a time like this, when it is passing this temporary Bill,
should not turn its mind away from any expedient which would prevent the depression from becoming worse. Therefore, I say that we must have the spread-over in this Bill.

Mr. POTTS: Why should you have it?

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid the hon. Member is not giving me the attention which my remarks deserve, or that his interest in the subject should enable him to give. Why should we not have it? Because, if Scotland does not get the spread-over, there will be an inevitable reduction of wages. The hon. Member knows that. The Government know it. Every mining Member knows it. The Miners' Federation know it. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. E. Edwards), who has taken such an important and distinguished part in recent negotiations, knows it. I say that it is a wicked thing to do, to whatever party one belongs, to force down wages unnecessarily, and I do suggest, seeing that this Bill is to operate for a period of 12 months only, that the Government, this timid Government, should not be frightened of the Miners' Federation and should include in the Bill the spread-over.
What has been the history of the spread-over? It is one of the queerest bits of history in economic organisation in this or any other country. What happened? In the large Coal Bill of 1930, for which the Labour Government, assisted by the Liberal party were responsible, we had the lines upon which the coal industry should be reorganised. The spread-over was introduced in another place, and it was accepted here. Unfortunately, there was a qualification that the spread-over had to be approved in any given district by the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation before the Board of Trade could give its sanction. That was a most unfortunate qualification, as it has turned out. When that provision became known many districts took advantage of it. From December to March the spread-over was worked and, as far as I know, it was worked with perfect amity and perfect peace, and with economically successful results. Then down came the axe, the guillotine, of the Miners' Federation. They said, "You shall not work the spread-over after March." There were only two districts that had the courage to continue the spread-over—Scotland
and North Wales. They continued, and as far as I know they will still continue, to work it. Certainly Scotland will, until the Government bring along their policemen.
One thing is certain, that from March to July the Government never attempted to stop the spread-over being carried on. One hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I say that they never attempted, and I will explain what I mean. The law was technically being broken. The law could have been invoked, but it was not invoked. Therefore, when I say that the Government did not attempt to prevent it, I am saying what is correct. The Government's way of preventing it was to invoke the law. That was not done, and I believe most wisely. I am sure the hon. Member for North Lanark will agree, and all who are concerned for the welfare of Scotland will agree, that it was most wise on the part of the Government not to invoke the law, because the result of the non-invocation of the law has been that the spread-over has been continued, and higher wages have been paid.

Miss LEE: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misinterpret me. My point of view is, that as long as there is one penny of profit being made out of the Scottish mining industry, or as long as there is a single step that can be taken to increase the efficiency of the industry, there is no case for reducing the wages of the men or of requiring them to work longer than seven hours.

Mr. SKELTON: When I opened my remarks I said that I did not agree with the hon. Lady in all her general propositions. What she has said now falls in that category. There can be no doubt that the non-attack upon the Scottish mineowners and miners in continuing the spread-over has enabled higher wages to be paid since March, and I believe the Government were right in not interfering with them. It was wise not to invoke the law against the spread-over, and it will be wise to include the spread-over in this Bill. It is a monstrous thing to do anything which will reduce wages. On merits, and from the point of view of the working of the industry and of the lives of the men and their families, there can be no excuse in Heaven or earth for forcing a reduction of wages,
when a simple amendment of this Bill would prevent it.
I regret that the Rules of Order are such and that the Title of the Bill has been so drawn as to preclude a spread-over Amendment or any other Amendment of substance being brought forward in this House, but that does not apply to the whole Constitution and to the other Chamber, and I hope must sincerely that this Government, in which Scotland is so fully represented, will not subjugate the interests of Scotland to the rest of the country. It is not for me to urge upon the Government that they should give the spread-over from the point of view of the English districts which reluctantly abandoned it in answer to the behest of the Miners' Federation which was exercised last March. I do not pretend to be a mining expert, but I do say that if you will allow the spread-over to work, on its merits, and not be subjected to the ipse dixit of either of the two organisations, we shall be able to raise wages this year in other districts than in Scotland. There can be no doubt that we should find that the spread-over would be adopted in districts where it was abandoned. It is a pity that either North Wales, which is in the same position as Scotland——

Mr. LEE: There is only one colliery in North Wales.

Mr. SKELTON: That shows how great is the need there if that small organisation is still maintaining the spread-over. It also shows how necessary it is if a single body is not attacked by the Government. This is a foul deed which must not be done——[Interruption.] Is it not a foul deed that something like £20,000 per week less should be paid in wages in the coal mining industry in Scotland as a result of this legislation? How can it be justified? How can this House at the bar of history or in common sense justify such action at a time like this? When this Bill reaches another place, where it can be dealt with unrestrained by the Rules of this House, I hope that the provision which originally was put into the Coal Mines Bill will be inserted in this Bill and that the spread-over, which has proved to be a blessing to Scotland will not be removed. It is useless to appeal to a Government who have made up their minds upon policy, perhaps not altogether of their
own free consent, but the case here is so strong, so dear and so dominating, that the Government should take their courage in their hands and say to the Miners' Federation that they must give up their foolish and wicked resistance to this method by which the miners' wages could be kept up.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: One would imagine from the remarks of the hon. Member that increased output always means increased wages.

Mr. SKELTON: I never used the word "output."

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member implied that the longer one works the more money one gets. May I suggest that we should look-at a few figures. In the first quarter of 1926, when the Scottish miners were working seven hours a day, their average wage per day was 10s. 3d., but in the first quarter of this year, when they were working the spread-over, their wages were 9s. 2d. per day. The longer they worked and the bigger the individual output, the smaller the wage, and this applies not only to Scotland but to all parts of the mining area in this country.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present when the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) was speaking, but he made it clear that the special importance of the spread-over to Scotland is connected with the highly mechanised form of the industry. I did not go over that ground again.

Mr. F. LEE: That means shorter hours.

Mr. SKELTON: I thought it was common knowledge that where you have mechanised coal-cutters the shorter shift means only an extra shortness in the amount of cutting time, because the time required for transference and moving remains fixed. That is the economics of the matter; and hon. Members opposite will have to swallow it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is apparent that there is no hope of converting the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). May I remind him of these figures, and ask him to reflect upon them between now and to-morrow evening when the Bill is to become law? In 1920, the individual out-
put was 230 tons per year; in 1930, it was 330 tons. The wages in 1920 were 23s. 11d. per ton, and in 1930 8s. 8d. While the output increased from 230 tons to 330 tons, wages went down from £279 in 1920 to £110 in 1930. If the logic of the hon. Member is carried to its proper conclusion, longer hours and increased individual output should have resulted in the miners earning more in 1930 than they did in 1920.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Member suggest that if the present hours were halved the miners wages would be bigger?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I suggest that if the present hours were doubled and the process which was operated since 1920 is allowed to continue the miners' wages will be 3s. to 4s. per day. I understand that there is a desire to secure the passage of this Bill by half-past seven tonight and, therefore, I will only put one or two questions to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the question of hours, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend if he can tell us exactly what machinery he intends to devise for the purpose of enforcing that the 7½-hour day will be actually worked? After the experience of the spread-over we are entitled to know whether when the Bill has been passed the hours are going to be uniform and that they will be applied in every part of the mining area. Clause 2 states that the additional percentages and subsistence allowances shall be the same after the passing of this Bill as they were prior to its introduction. In Yorkshire the agreement says
There shall be an allowance of 6d. per shift provided the gross daily wage does not exceed 8s. 9d.
That is the subsistence wage—"
That is if the wage s below 8s. 9d. up to 6d. per day can be paid as a subsistence wage.
If the wage exceeds 8s. 9d. per day, clearly there are no guarantees under the Bill. The question I want to ask is this: Is there any implied guarantee in Clause 2 for a basic rate of wages? In Yorkshire for the whole of last month, out of a total of £1,344,901 paid in wages, only £13,000 were paid as subsistence allowances. Therefore, it there are no guarantees for basic rates of wages,
there is no such guarantee at all as far as Yorkshire subsistence arrangements are concerned. When the hours were reduced in certain parts of the country from eight to 7½ per day 7.1 per cent. was allowed to piece rates workers for the lost half hour, Is there any guarantee that that 7.1 per cent. will be preserved under the terms of this Bill? It is well that we should know exactly what the Bill intends and implies, so that those responsible in various parts of the country will understand what the Bill actually means. These questions are important, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will reply to them. Then, with regard to the coal face worker. During the year 1930, his wages amounted to 45s. 6d. per week, that is for the best worker in the coal face; 39s. 3d. for the filler and for the surface worker 35s. 10d. per week. That, I understand, is to be rectified, and the surface worker is to be made part and parcel of the guarantee as far as the subsistence wage is concerned.
Then there is the question of reductions. This is the pay sheet of a boy 17 years of age, whose father because of illness had been dismissed from the colliery, but still lived in a colliery house. The son continued to work at the colliery and in this particular week he worked three days, as many as the colliery worked. His wages amounted to 15s. 6d., and from it were deducted 10s. for rent, 2s. 6d. for rates, 5d. for water. 1s. 3d. for doctor, 3d. for recreation, 2d. for the infirmary, 9d. for national health and something for unemployment insurance, making a total deduction of 15s. 5½d., leaving the boy with ½d. to take home. That is the sort of thing which is actually happening in mining areas. Whether these men work seven hours or eight hours, they get only just as much as they are strong enough to compel the coal-owners to pay notwithstanding my own predilections in regard to this Bill, my instructions are contained in a telegram I have received from the Yorkshire Miners' Federation, who while expressing their disappointment at the result of the negotiations, find themselves unable to do other than support the passage of the Bill. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will answer the questions, which I can assure him have been put with the intention of clearing the air
rather than of embarrassing the passage of the Bill.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: I rise to protest against the substance of this Bill and against the time and mode of its being presented to this House. Hon. Members above the Gangway have criticised the Government and the miners, but have acquiesced in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite, and the trade union leaders who are associated with them, have criticised the coalowners and have acquiesced in the Bill. The right hon. Member who has spoken from these benches has criticised all parties, and has acquiesced in the Bill. I do not acquiesce in the Bill, and if any hon. Gentleman in any part of the House likes to meet me in the Lobby when a Division is called, I shall be pleased to meet him there. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"] I mean that I shall vote against the Bill if anyone else will support me. I remember saying just about a year ago, when the present Coal Mines Act was being discussed, that at the end of a year we should have the coalowners back on the doorstep of the House, importuning and threatening the House that unless they got further concessions the coal industry would be held up. The Government, whose legislation is so largely responsible for the present impasse, whose lack of energy in finding any market after they had interfered so clumsily with the original market, has precipitated the present crisis, are now going to throw the miners to the wolves.
This Bill is a Bill to betray the miners and to blackmail this House. The Bill is a pistol held to the heads of Members of the House, with the threat that unless it is passed by Tuesday night the whole coal industry will be in a state of chaos. That is the threat behind the Bill. The employers and the Conservative party, who often talk about the need and the desirability of maintaining a strong trade union structure in our industries, have directed their policy with very great success to the end of preventing the re-forming of the united trade union front in the coal industry that they so successfully broke in 1926. They have done it in this Bill with the connivance of the Government Front Bench. What have the miners got out of this so-called settlement? They have not a national wage agreement. They have not the
Minimum Wage Act, 1914, plus the increased cost of living rates; and they have not the Seven Hours Act—all of which the Socialist party led them to suppose they must get. What they have got is this: That their present low rates are guaranteed them, and the present hours, which the great industrial party opposite so fearlessly condemned a year ago.
No wonder that hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House wish that the Bill might be prolonged indefinitely, and that for an indefinite period the miners might have to submit to these conditions. I say again that the miners are being sold under this Bill. I have friends working in the South Wales coalfield now. They are earning 288. a week if they work for four days a week. By working three days it is possible for a single man to get 29s. 6d. by going on the dole for three days. That is the condition to which the Government, with all their great reforming genius, have reduced the wage-earners in the coalfields. This crisis has been looming before us for about a year. The Government have sat terrified and watched it sliding towards them. They have done nothing to avert it. Now they find it easier to tackle the miner than the industry. In the same way at the end of the week they will find it easier to tackle the unemployed than to tackle unemployment.
There have been commanders before today who have been forgiven by men they led to disaster. There have been commanders whose strategy or lack of strategy led their men into defeat. Yet they organised a rear-guard to cover the retreat. The present Government are leaving the miners in the line to fight a soldiers' battle. In every industry they are going to leave the men to fight a soldiers' battle in the next few months. Having led the miners into this position the Government are well content to leave them there. They have evacuated the general staff, and whatever happens to the miners His Majesty's Administration will still be on those benches. [Interruption.] I am here to say what I feel on the subject. As a private Member I have a perfect right to express my opinion, and I am going to say what no one else on these benches has yet said,
that is, that the miners have been let down.
A Duke of York not otherwise entitled to a place in our military annals, achieved immortality because he had 10,000 men whom he led up a hill and down again. The present miners' leaders will be remembered for a different reason. They had 1,000,000 men. They led them up the garden and left them there. For the last week or more we have been reading, in the kept Press of the Government party, of dramatic last-minute interventions, of the Premier's lightning strokes to avert a crisis. The Government have not dared to come to the House and say that they have a treaty, because a treaty which lasts for only 12 months is only an armistice. But they pretend that they have a settlement. Everyone here knows that in 12 months time in this House the problem will be 12 times intensified, because the Government are now merely shelving responsibility. Perhaps at the end of 12 months the over-eager Gentlemen on the Conservative benches will be sitting on the Government side. The present Government will then at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the continuity of their policy will be properly preserved, and that wage cuts will go on in every industry. The Government cannot pretend that this is a settlement Yet in a way it is a settlement. A settlement in a commercial sense means a sale properly concluded. There has been a sale in this Bill, and every Member of the House and of the party opposite who subscribes to the terms of the settlement becomes a party to the sale.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The hon. Member who has just spoken is certainly entitled to speak his mind, but the House would have been grateful to him if he had explained with some clarity the purpose of his speech. His speech seemed to me to be reminiscent of Russia, where he has recently been, with his references to millions of men and the Duke of York and military metaphors. All these things appear to have led the hon. Member in the wrong direction.

Mr. F. OWEN: But not up the garden.

Mr. SHINWELL: At all events there is no truth whatever in the hon. Member's allegations against the Government, as to
inactivity in relation to the mining industry during the past 12 months. We had the responsibility of promoting reorganisation in this industry.

Mr. OWEN: And what a pass you have brought it to, with this Bill!

Mr. SHINWELL: If attention is now directed to one point, it is a condition for which those who have refused to operate the reorganisation proposals embodied in the Coal Mines Act are responsible, and not this Government. We have directed the attention of the mining industry to the need for promoting international agreements for establishing uniformity in labour conditions, and for eliminating the competitive factors which are a real menace to the industry. All these things have been done. Moreover for several months now we have directed the attention of both sides to the need for cooperation in relation to 8th July. The hon. Member and other hon. Members complained that we had not reorganised the industry sufficiently. I can only reply that whenever this House is responsive to the principles embodied in the Labour party's mining policy and gives us power to apply that policy, no Members are more grateful than those on this side.
Several speakers have criticised this legislation, and some have gone so far as to say that this is a bad Bill. But I was left in some doubt as to the character of the legislation they would have proposed if they had been in office. For what are they asking? It can only be legislation or no legislation. If there is to be no legislation, clearly the 7-hour day will come into operation on Wednesday next. But that, we are told by one hon. Gentleman, would be a calamity. When the Government seek to avert the calamity they are criticised.

Lord BALNIEL: You are criticised for promising to do it.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it the nature of the legislation to which objection is taken? If that be so, hon. Members so far have managed to conceal their real opinion regarding this legislation. There has been some talk about the need for continuing the spread-over discussions, but who that has had experience of the spread-over in Scotland desires its continuance? [Interruption.] The hon.
and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) interrupts by mentioning the name of a prominent Scottish miners' leader, but presumably that leader is well able to speak for himself, and if he requires to select a proxy I can hardly believe that he would select the hon. and gallant Member. The acting President of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain has declared the policy of the federation—including the mine-workers of Scotland—this afternoon. In the operation of the spread-over there have been anomalies which make it essential to bring the spread-over to an end. There is no reason at all why Scotland should be permitted to operate a spread-over for which no other district in this country has made a demand, for which no other district has asked within the past few weeks.
7.0 p.m.
Reference has been made to North Wales. The spread-over there was of a modified character, a few minutes in excess of the 7½ hours. Therefore, on the ground of its impracticability, on the ground that the spread-over in Scotland gives Scotland an advantage over her competitors in England, an advantage resented by the coalowners in other parts of the country, and more particularly because it has been made abundantly clear to us by the Scottish miners and the Miners' Federation that they do not desire to continue the spread-over method of working in Scotland, it is to go. I observe in the speeches of hon. Members opposite a continuance of the threat that, if the spread-over were abandoned in Scotland, the wages of the Scottish miners must inevitably be reduced. That serves to confirm our suspicion in regard to the spread-over. We have maintained all along that the spread-over was utilised as a weapon, in effect, to intimidate the miners——[HON. MEMBERS: "Why did you not prosecute?"] I am asked by hon. Members why we did not invoke the aid of the law. I shall tell hon. Members why. Because we negotiated for several months with the Scottish Coal Owners' Association and the Scottish Union of Mine Workers with a view to removing the spread-over if both parties desired its removal by negotiation. When we ultimately failed by means of negotiation to remove the spread-over, we then had to consider in all the circumstances the effect of
prosecution, and more particularly we had to concern ourselves with the imminence of 8th July.

Mr. SKELTON: Why did you threaten to prosecute?

Mr. SHINWELL: An attempt has been made, even in the very tolerant and generous speech of the Leader of the Opposition, to fasten the responsibility for this legislation upon the shoulders of this Government, but is there no responsibility on the shoulders of the Opposition? We have heard a great deal about limited legislation, and we have been told that the limited and restricted character of our legislation in the Bill will bring recurrent crises to the mining industry. I would remind the House that the legislation which is the principal cause of the legislation now invoked, was of a limited character. It applied for five years to terminate on 8th July. Therefore, on both grounds the accusation must fail. First of all, the responsibility is not upon the shoulders of this Government, but upon Parliament in 1926 when it adjusted the hours of labour in coal mines. Secondly, the charge fails because the limited character of the legislation is merely continuing the policy of the late Government with regard to legislation in connection with hours in coal mines. We have been brought to this pass by the fact that action required to be taken, not so much to prevent the 7-hour day coming into operation—because, indeed, it was the desire of every hon. and right hon. Member on this side of the House to bring the 7-hour day into operation as speedily as possible—but because in the present depressing economic circumstances, which cannot be concealed, which are obvious to everyone confronted with the facts pertaining to this industry, it was necessary as a temporary expedient to invoke the 71-hour day for a limited period. That is precisely the reason for this legislation.
Something has been said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was on a previous occasion Secretary for Mines, with regard to the inevitability of a further crisis in 12 months. There is no need for a further crisis if the mine-owners will respond to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. E. Edwards), the acting president
of the Miners' Federation. He has pleaded for co-operation and for negotiation; he asks, not for strife, but for order. Surely the owners cannot resist that appeal. If, in the course of the next 12 months, both sides of the industry will engage in discussions, will pursue the course asked for, there is no reason why a crisis should occur, and there is, on the contrary, every reason to suppose that a crisis can be averted.
We have been charged with ignoring the possibilities of the Geneva Convention. I am very much obliged to hon. and right hon. Members for their personal references in this regard. We have established the principle of uniformity as regards the hours of work in coal mines for the first time, thus eliminating one of the obvious factors of competition in the coal industry of Europe. I believe that is an achievement. But, when we are asked to take due regard of the possibilities of the ratification of that Convention, we must remind hon. Members that the matter is not entirely in our hands, that we must immediately enter into negotiations with other Governments concerned, and that we must seek their aid which, in my judgment, will readily be given. But, while negotiations must precede ratification, it may well be that ratification will be possible before the end of 12 months. Even if that is so, Parliament must be prepared to accept further legislation. I judge from the speeches of hon. Members that Parliament is reluctant to accept further legislation as regards the mining industry. In any case, negotiations must precede ratification of the Geneva Convention.
What is to happen between the end of the 12 months period guaranteeing wages and the date of ratification of the Geneva Convention? Now, when I have put that question, I have stated the whole issue as concisely as it can be stated. If negotiations broke down, they broke down on the issue, whether or not it was possible for both sides to agree as to the measures to be taken between the end of the 12 months' period and the period of ratification or, in lieu of ratification of the Convention, some agreement of a national character in the mining industry. If the coal owners had provided such a guarantee and had given the miners an assurance that at the end of 12 months, either by means of national
negotiating machinery or in its absence a definite guarantee with regard to the continuance of such safeguards as are embodied in this Bill, if that had been done, there would have been no need to come to the House of Commons and ask for wages legislation. We might have contented ourselves merely by asking the House of Commons to agree to a continuance of the 7½-hour day. But the owners being recalcitrant—and I am not complaining unduly as the owners have had to consider the economic circumstances of this industry, the tremendous competition from abroad and the falling off in trade—have been reluctant to offer further guarantees. On the other hand, the men have asked—and, in my judgment, rightly so—for some guarantee of a safeguarding character so that they might be assured in the next 12 months, or for a longer period until new conditions can be in force, that the already low wages of the miners will not be interfered with. We heard this afternoon from the lips of the hon. Member for Morpeth a statement of appalling wage conditions in the mining industry. It was hardly necessary to make such a statement, for hon. Members on the other side have themselves declared that the wages in the mining industry are already too low. Surely, in those circumstances we are entitled to ask that such safeguards should be secured to the mine workers.
We have been asked to give the House a date when the Geneva Convention can be ratified. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put that question, and I venture to give what I think is the only possible answer. It is impossible to give a definite date, but it is possible to say that, having regard to the fact that at Geneva we carried the Convention by 81 votes to 2, with the employers abstaining, thus tacitly accepting the Convention—indeed during the process of the negotiations at Geneva they did not offer strenuous opposition to the main principles of the Convention—having regard to that fact, we are entitled to assume that, as soon as we can begin negotiations with the competent authorities in other countries, it is possible to reach agreement. If and when that is done, I assume it will be necessary to come to this House and ask for appropriate legislation. But we are not content with the efforts at Geneva. Refer-
ence has been made to the need for pro moting marketing schemes and selling agencies and for tightening up the Coal Mines Act. In all these respects we have sought the aid of the mineowners. For example, in Scotland we have offered the owners our aid in securing some amendment of the Coal Mines Act. At all events, we have offered to give it consideration in order to protect the export trade of Scotland. When the owners come forward we are ready to consider their proposals with patience, and with some hope of promoting legislation.

Mr. F. OWEN: What if they do not come forward?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am glad of that observation. If the mineowners of Scotland, or the mineowners of England, or any of the district associations, who, presumably, are best competent to judge of the effects of the Coal Mines Act and of what is required in the way of possible amendment, refrain from approaching the Government, we must accept their abstention as tacit support at least of the Coal Mines Act. I do not believe that to be the case. I have had conversations with coalowners in various parts of the country and they are now seeking some remedy for what they regard as defects in the existing legislation. It is a matter for them and not for us, and the House would not thank us if we introduced legislation against the express wishes of the coalowners. Indeed that is precisely the main contention against us in regard to the legislation now before the House.
I have been asked several questions with regard to the negotiations leading up to this legislation. I have already referred—and it seems to be unnecessary to indulge in repetition—to the steps which led to the negotiations in March of this year. During the negotiations of the past two weeks, the Government sought in every possible direction for a solution, and no blame devolves upon the shoulders of the Government for having failed to find a solution. If the coalowners and the miners had presented us with an agreement, the Government would not have rejected it. The Government would have been in duty bound to accept that agreement and such legislation as would have been introduced in this House would have been based upon that agreement. But it was the absence of agree-
ment which compelled the Government to come forward with this legislation. This legislation is regarded as non-contentious—that is to say we are not to be confronted at the end of the Debate with a Division, although the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen) expressed a desire to test the issue in the Division Lobby.

Mr. OWEN: Hear, hear!

Mr. SHINWELL: Well, I am bound to say in reply to that remark, that before the hon. Member proceeds to the Division Lobby he must be prepared to consider the alternative to this legislation.

Mr. OWEN: I have done so.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member declares that he has given it consideration. That was not obvious from his speech but I forgive him for that.

Mr. OWEN: Thank you.

Mr. SHINWELL: After all, the hon. Member has no right to make speeches of that character at a time like the present——

Mr. OWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to gag the House of Commons? Are we not to say our minds? It would be a better House if we all said our minds.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member has said his mind and I must say mine. All I am doing is to point out to the hon. Member and, indeed to other hon. Members, not with any desire to offend but merely with a desire to avert calamity that before he proceeds to the Division Lobby on this question he must be prepared to offer a satisfactory alternative which will avoid a stoppage on Wednesday next. The hon. Member has said that it amounts to blackmailing the House of Commons. As to that, I can only say that much as I would deplore having to adopt such strategy in the House of Commons, yet, on the whole, I think it might be better to resort to such tactics than to allow the mining industry to blackmail the House of Commons and the country. Therefore we have no alternative but to ask the House of Commons to accept this legislation, on the ground that it is practicable and that it meets the wishes of the miners in the existing circum-
stances. It is not the best legislation that could have been devised from their standpoint, but, it is the best thing that can be done.
May I say a word about the general position of the industry. Whatever may be done to-night and to-morrow, in the promotion of this legislation this is not a final solution. It is in the words of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee), a truce. It is a patching up; but, without this truce, a greater difficulty than now exists in the mining industry would fall upon it. Eventually, if I may say so with great respect, in this House we shall be driven to consider new organisations and organisational methods with regard to the mining industry. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) who was formely at the Mines Department said that the industry resented Parliamentary interference. If that be so, the sooner the industry proceeds to consider a solution of its own the better for all concerned. In the absence of that solution—and clearly no such solution is in sight—Parliament is compelled, having regard to the circumstances, to find a solution itself. As to the nature of that solution I shall not speak to-night. I believe it would be out of order to do so. But sooner or later we shall be driven to consider what that solution may be.
Meantime, we commend this legislation to the House not because we regard it as the final word, not because we regard it as the best kind of legislation that could have been introduced, not because we desire to ignore the claim of the miners for a 7-hour day or their claim for higher wages, certainly not because we refuse to respond to the claims of the mineowners—because we are only too ready to listen to them and to consider their claims and meet them as far as we may—but because 8th July is facing us only two days away, and unless this legislation is passed by Parliament within the next two days, we may be confronted with a serious stoppage in the industry with a possible wage crisis which the mining industry cannot endure.
I am sure that the House will accept it from me, as being said with some little knowledge of the position gathered during the past 12 months, that the menace of foreign competition is greater than ever.
I had occasion some time ago, in company with coalowners and exporters, to explore the position in the Scandinavian countries. There we have the Polish menace—Polish coal sold at rock-bottom prices, at prices with which we cannot possibly compete, gradually superseding British coal in Scandinavia and elsewhere. We have the competition of coal sold at a loss which British coalowners are not prepared to accept, coal subsidised on the railways and subsidised in the inland market, by a national levy—a principle which this House would not accept when the Coal Mines Act was under consideration. We find stocks rising in Poland in spite of the rock-bottom prices. In spite of the elimination of British coal in the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere by Polish coal, the Polish coal industry is no more favourably situated to-day than it was three years ago. Similarly in Germany we find stocks accumulating, wages menaced, hours menaced, new legislation invoked by the Government frequently, arbitration awards set aside and new arbitration awards established. That is the position in Germany.
What is the remedy? I am glad to be able to tell the House that the coalowners themselves are turning their eyes in the direction of a possible economic agreement of an international character in an attempt to stabilise the level of prices throughout Europe, and with a view to the possible allocation of markets. In that way, in my judgment, a solution lies. But do not let us pretend for a moment that that provides the whole solution. Something must be done in this country in regard to organisation. We are ready to meet the coalowners at any time and discuss any proposition which they care to put before us. We are ready to listen to the House of Commons itself if any proposition is submitted for consideration. Clearly, in the present position of the mining industry no party in this House, whatever the circumstances, whatever the threats from outside, whether from the miners or from the mineowners, can afford to regard with complacency the possibilities inherent in the position which might arise in the course of the next few days. That being the case, I venture to say with the greatest seriousness to this House that this legislation must in the circumstances be accepted, the alternative being disaster
probably as expensive in character and more fraught with calamity to the country than the disaster of 1926.

Mr. WACQUISTEN: This is very hurried legislation, but there is no calamity involved. There is nothing to hinder the English miners and mine-owners doing what the Scottish miners and mineowners have done, and breaking this absurd legislation by simply defying the law and relying on it that the Government will not prosecute them for doing so. Let them go on working the 7½-hour day. I hope we will do it in Scotland. We have broken laws passed by English Governments before in Scotland, and I do not see any reason why the Scottish miners should be dragged at the chariot wheels of the Miners' Federation. Let them try to stop the miners in Scotland from working the spread-over. Let them try to take the £20,000 a week out of the pockets of the miners of Scotland and they will see what they will get.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to incite His Majesty's subjects to break the law?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know as to its being in order, but I seem to have heard it done before.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And no one probably has done it more frequently than the hon. Lady who has raised this futile point of Order. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) when he said that the original Bill should have provided for more than five years, and I agree that it is very hard lines on the Government that they should have to deal with the matter now, but I cannot see why they should not take five years also. The spread-over in Scotland has been agreed upon and I do not see why it should be given up. It would be an intolerable hardship on the Scottish miner, and no finer fellow walks the earth than the Scottish miner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite may jeer, but I have been the friend and defender of the Scottish miner for many years, and I have great faith in him, and, if be gets into any trouble by defying this legislation, I hope he will have no difficulty in finding defenders.
One point has been omitted in this Debate and that concerns the real trouble in the mining industry and in our export trade in coal. I was speaking to a man recently who told me that he spent day after day in putting miners out of work. He was selling oil fuel, and the whole world is using oil fuel. All our great liners are using oil fuel and this particular man told me that in one week he had put 1,000 miners out of work. The constituency of the Secretary for Mines supplies one of the biggest manufactories in Scotland with some 50,000 tons of oil every year. They took to that after 1921, because they were not going to carry on their valuable business by the kind permission of the Miners' Federation, so they went into oil. Everybody is going into oil, and——

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL (By Order).

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction of commencement of works.)

The bridge and other works by this Act authorised shall not be commenced until a local Act has been passed authorising the construction of suitable training walls for the protection of the navigation of the River Humber and containing a provision requiring such training walls to be constructed simultaneously with the construction of the bridge.—[Mr. T. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. TOM SMITH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It may be unfortunate that such an important Debate as the Coal Mines Bill should be interrupted by a discussion with regard to this bridge over the River Humber, but I make no apology for the action that I have taken with regard to this Bill, although I want to say quite frankly that I know that a good many hon. Members of this House believe that the Humber Bridge is necessary in order to link up the two coun-
ties and to find work for the unemployed. Although I appreciate that they are extremely anxious to get this Bill passed into law, I hope they will at least give me the credit for being equally sincere in stating the point of view of my constituency with regard to it. In order to understand the objection to this Bill by the Port of Goole, one must have some regard to the situation of that port. The Port of Goole is to-day the eleventh port in the country. It has made tremendous progress during the last 50 years. Its population in 1881 was 450, and at the census in 1921 it was approximately 20,000. It handles in the course of a year, according to the returns of the Board of Trade, imports and exports to the value of £30,000,000. It is the nearest port to the South Yorkshire coal field and to the manufacturing district of the West Riding, and therefore it behoves a port like Goole, being 47 miles from the North Sea and 24 miles inland from Hull, to watch very carefully that nothing is done by this House or by anybody else to obstruct or impede the passage of boats from Goole to the North Sea.
Rightly or wrongly, there is a unanimous opinion in Goole against this Bill. It is not merely concerned with Tories and Liberals; it is Labour supporters as well. It is not merely employers; it is employés as well. I have had resolutions from practically every organised body in the Port of Goole against this Bill, and I have not had a single postcard or been approached in any way to support the Bill. A remarkable contrast can be shown so far as the enthusiasm of Goole against the bridge is concerned, in the apathy of the people of Hull when a poll was taken some time ago. Hull, out of an electorate of 140,000, managed to get about 12,000 people to vote in favour of the Bill; Goole, which is sometimes referred to as Sleepy Hollow, was wide enough awake on this occasion to get more than 10,600 signatures against the bridge out of a population of 20,000. Some 81.3 per cent. of the local government electors registered their protest against this bridge, and I mention that in order to show that my action as Member of Parliament for the Pontefract Division has been dictated by the feeling in Goole against this bridge.
Goole's objection can be stated very simply and very shortly. Goole is not opposed to the bridge as a bridge; that is to say, if it was possible to span the river without any piers at all, Goole would not have objected. There are two main objections to the Bill. First of all, the number of piers will make it more dangerous for ships to pass to and fro; the other objection is the effect of these piers on the channels of the river. The first objection has largely been met. The Committee, which sat for 32 days upstairs, and of which the Chairman, the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Raynes), said it was perhaps unique in the history of Select Committees, laid it down that the two anchor spans should be widened to a distance of 470 feet each and that the headway of the other span should be raised. So far as that objection goes, it has been met to a certain extent by the insistence of the Committee that these spans should be widened. With regard to the other objection, the promoters of the Bill have sent round an ex parte statement, which says this:
The Bill was opposed before the Committee of the House of Commons by a number of petitioners, mainly on the ground that the bridge would render navigation of the river more difficult and might, it was suggested, cause silting or other interference with the river and thus have a detrimental effect upon the Port of Goole. The promoters called before the Committee expert evidence of the highest order to satisfy them that these fears were groundless and that no serious interference would take place with the navigation of the river and that the Port of Goole would not be affected,
While it is true that expert evidence was called by the promoters on this point, it is also true that the three engineers whom they called, namely, Mr. Ralph Freeman, Sir Alexander Gibb, and Sir Cyril Kirkpatrick, stated that the deep water channel at the side of the bridge was not likely, except from abnormal causes, to shift to the south side of the river. It is perfectly true that these men are eminent civil engineers, but when cross-examined, Mr. Freeman and Sir Alexander Gibb stated that they had absolutely no experience at ail with regard to the estuaries of rivers, and Sir Cyril Kirkpatrick stated that his experience was with regard to the River Thames, which river is not in any sense comparable with the River Humber. It may be good
tactics on the part of the promoters to issue an ex parte statement to Members of Parliament stating that three eminent engineers had said there was likely to be no injury to navigation, but it must also be remembered that the petitioners against the Bill called three civil engineers, who have been connected with the river the whole of their lives; and nine eminent engineers, all of whom have had experience of the River Humber, were called, and they stated that, in their opinion, injury would be done to navigation. Therefore, I contend that while you may get three eminent civil engineers with no experience of estuaries or of the difficulties of navigating the Ouse and the Humber, the three-civil engineers and nine engineers called by the petitioners have an equal right to be regarded as experts, and their opinion at least ought to be weighed against the statement made by the engineers called by the promoters.
The Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Derby had under consideration the question as to whether or not the Preamble of this Bill should be approved. As I say, rightly or wrongly, the entire township of Goole is opposed to it, and I must draw the attention of the House to the remarks made by the Chairman of the Committee when the approval of the Preamble of the Bill was given. He says:
The view we express is that the construction of training walls, in our opinion, becomes essential; that their construction should go on side by side with the construction of the bridge.
Later, at the same sitting of the Committee, the Chairman stated:
We realise it will be necessary to reconsider the whole question of training walls in the light of the construction of the bridge, and any construction of training wails so found by the engineers to be necessary should, in our opinion, go along coterminous with the bridge.
That brings us down to the wording of the Clause which I am now moving, and which states that the bridge should beheld up until such time as a local Act has been passed instituting training walls, to proceed simultaneously with the building of the bridge. The Urban District Council of Goole, when this Bill passed through Committee, thought it inadvisable to try to get the Bill defeated on its Third Reading. They are anxious for
one thing and one thing only, and that is an assurance that navigation will not be injured to the detriment of the Port of Goole. Therefore, they suggested that training walls should be commenced simultaneously with the building of the bridge. I would therefore like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he could give an assurance to the objectors to this Bill that he will use his influence to call the parties together, with the one object of trying to get an agreed Measure, so far as training walls are concerned, and that such scheme will receive financial assistance from the Government, and I believe that if that can be done it will modify considerably the attitude of the objectors to this Bill when it reaches another place in the first week in November.
I, therefore, appeal to the Minister of Transport to use his good offices. I am the last in the world to try to prevent constructive work taking place. I want to see some work found for the unemployed, but in trying to initiate schemes of work for the unemployed, one must have some regard to its consequences. If it be that the fears of my constituency are well founded and that this bridge will injure navigation, it may be that while it would find work for a number of men for a limited time, it would ultimately throw more men out of work, and if that were done, it would be another example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I want to see training walls, because I believe that they are necessary. I want to see this bridge built if it can be built without injury to the port of Goole. Goole has done its best to try and get schemes of work for the unemployed. It has initiated and put into operation eight different schemes since this Government came into office, and that is not a bad effort for an urban district with a small rateable value. I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the House who are backing the Humber Bridge Bill, anxious though they may be to see it pass, will allow me the same sincerity in putting forward my constituents' point of view as they expect for themselves. I hope that the Minister of Transport will be able to make a declaration that will allow the Goole Urban District Council and the other objectors to modify their attitude when
this Bill goes to another place. If that can be done, it will be a very happy way out of a very serious difficulty.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has put the case as submitted to him by his Goole constituents so well that it would be a waste of time for me to repeat any of his arguments. Moreover, the appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport was such that I can scarcely imagine him failing to respond as far as it is humanly possible. I would, however, in a few sentences supplement the appeal of my hon. Friend by calling the attention of the Minister of Transport to this important fact. The port of Goole is quite near to the south and west Yorkshire coalfields, and as the new South Yorkshire coalfield develops, the port of Goole will be called upon to a far greater extent than is the case at this moment. I would remind my right hon. Friend and those who are supporting the Bill merely from the point of view of attempting to find work for the unfortunate men who are unemployed at this moment, that one of the newer South Yorkshire quarries is spending £20,000 erecting a new railway cutting to the canal, and the canal company are spending £16,000 in widening a lock, so that in future many hundreds of thousands of tons of coal, which must now be transported by rail, will take the easier journey to the Continent by the port of Goole.
A good deal of work is being found in the extensions that are taking place. I suggest therefore that, apart altogether from the very real fear which is ever-present in the minds of the business people and the workpeople of Goole from the economic point of view as to the effect on the new collieries in South Yorkshire, it would be disastrous for us to fail to provide training walls if by the mere provision of those walls navigation will in any way be affected, and the Fort of Goole able to continue to develop its business and become a real asset to the development of the coalfields in the south part of Yorkshire. For these reasons, and because I know that my right hon. Friend is a reasonably minded man who is always willing to do his best for reasonably minded people, I hope that he will respond as nobly as he can to the appeal made by my hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The real intention of this proposed new Clause is to ask the House to disagree with the decision which was arrived at by a Select Committee of this House after very nearly three months of the most painstaking investigation. When I hear the question of training walls raised, I am reminded of the well-known proverb that there are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream. The decision that a bridge across the Humber was in the interests of the locality, and furthermore that it would not in any way prejudice the navigation of the river, was only taken by the Committee after they had sat for 32 days and had listened to evidence which covers more than 800 closely printed pages. For many years the problem of providing some communication across the river Humber, other than by an obsolete ferry, has become more and more urgent. Of all the rivers that pour their waters into the North Sea, the only one that is still unbridged is the Humber. The Thames, the Tees, the Tyne, the Tweed, the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Tay—all have their bridges or tunnels at or adjacent to the mouth. Only at the Humber have we to go 70 or 80 miles inland before a crossing can be found. A direct line of communication exists up the eastern side of this country from the English Channel to the Pentland Firth, and only at the Humber is that line of communication broken.
An opportunity has occurred for remedying this truly lamentable state of affairs. The unparalleled unemployment of the last few years has rendered possible the undertaking of a work which is absolutely necessary. The well-filled coffers of the Road Fund are at hand to provide, or at any rate to subsidise, the sinews of war; after all, what could be fairer and juster than that the Road Fund, which is contributed by motorists and the motoring interests, should in its turn provide for the motorists a direct line of communication from north to south along the line of the old Roman road which for centuries has been called Ermine Street? In the old Roman days the river was crossed by a ferry which, as far as I can gather, was pretty much the same as regards efficiency as the ferry which is in use to-day. Although it is true that steam ferry boats are
used, the access to the landing stages is so primitive that it is almost impossible to get on board the ferry boat a vehicle any larger than a perambulator, and when fog comes along, the ferry boats either run aground or lose themselves altogether.
The bridge which we are asking the House for power to construct will in every way be worthy of the magnitude of the stream which it is designed to span. From one end to the other it will be something over three miles in length; the actual bridge will be just over a mile and a quarter, and to avoid interfering in any way with the navigation of the river, the main navigable channel will be crossed by one large span. To avoid interfering in any way with the tidal ebb and flow of the river, that area of the river, approximately 2,000 feet in width, where the ebb and flow is the strongest, will have only two piers of the bridge in it. Therefore the obstruction which can be caused to the tidal flow is practically negligible. The central span, which is designed to cross the main navigable channel of the river, will be 900 feet in length—larger than any other bridge in the country. To many people 900 feet is a somewhat nebulous distance. May I give a simple illustration of what it means? The great central span of this proposed bridge will be wider than the entire length of Westminster Bridge. If you can imagine one end of the span where Mr. Speaker's Chair is, the other end would be at St. Thomas's Hospital in Surrey. The hon. Gentleman who moved this new Clause made a great point that this bridge would interfere with shipping and the Port of Goole. Most of the shipping that is registered for the Port of Goole could pass under that great central span at the same time.
The proposed new Clause deals largely with the question of training walls, and I may say at once that the promoters agree that training walls would greatly improve the navigability of the river. As far back as 1913, three eminent engineering experts reported that a system of training walls was necessary to maintain the navigability of the river at its best. That was before this bridge was even dreamed of. It is quite true that training walls are necessary, and that they were necessary before the bridge was con-
templated, and whether the bridge is built or not does not affect one iota the necessity of those walls. In fact, many people think that it would be better to leave the training walls question until the bridge is built, because they will then be able to see whether the bridge does actually cause any divergence or any silting, which can then be remedied by the alignment of the training Walls. So confident are the promoters in this Measure that no damage will be caused to the navigation of the river in any way, that they have given a guarantee to maintain the status quo of the river. Should the channel show any sign of shifting, it is the business of the Bridge Board to maintain the channel in its existing position. Should any silt show signs of forming, it is the business of the Bridge Board to deal with it. They have implemented that guarantee in the Bill.

Clause 57, Sub-section (2) of the Measure says:
If at any time after the commencement of any of the works by this Act authorised and within fifteen years after the completion of the bridge it is shown that by reason of the execution or maintenance of those works or any of them or any part thereof respectively any silting of or other interference with the river has occurred or is occurring within one mile from the bridge on the easterly side thereof or within two and a-half miles from the bridge on the westerly side thereof to such extent as to interfere or be likely to interfere materially with the proper exercise and discharge by a protected authority of their rights powers and duties it shall be the duty of the board to execute such dredging or other works as are reasonably necessary in consequence thereof.

In Clause 58 we find that the guarantee is again implemented. The words are:
If at any time as a consequence of the construction of the bridge any alteration takes place in the main channel of the river to such an extent that the navigation of the river is materially prejudiced thereby the board shall take such steps for the protection of such navigation as may be agreed between the board and the Conservancy Board or as failing agreement may be deter-mined by arbitration. …
If after the completion of the bridge any alteration takes place by natural causes in the situation of the main channel of the river where it is crossed by the bridge. … so that such main channel no longer passes under the main span of the bridge the board shall take such steps as may be agreed between the board and the Conservancy Board or as failing agreement may be deter- 
mined by arbitration for the purpose of ensuring that such main channel shall pass under the main span of the bridge.

8.0 p.m.

That is the guarantee given by the Bridge Board which, to all intents and purposes, is the great City of Hull and the county of Lincolnshire. We have the word of the City of Hull that this bridge shall not be allowed to interfere in any way with the navigation of the river Humber, and in these circumstances it seems to me that this Amendment is absolutely unnecessary. In addition, there is this great difficulty, that at present we have neither the powers nor the money to construct these training walls, and to wait until the powers were obtained and the money was forthcoming might mean waiting for many years. With unemployment so severe as it is in the northern counties, to defer this work would be not only unnecessary but actually cruel. As to what the hon. Member has said with regard to the possibility of the channel shifting, the channel at the bridge site has been stabilised for more than a century. As far as we know, and as far as any charts show, the channel has never been in any other place. The risk of the channel shifting is almost negligible, and if it did there is the guarantee of the greaty City of Hull that it will be kept in place. In conclusion, I would say that I have represented a constituency in Hull for more than 12 years, I am thoroughly acquainted with the needs of the locality, and I unhesitatingly beg the House to give a Third Beading to this Bill.

Mr. RAYNES: I speak on behalf of the Select Committee which for 32 strenuous Parliamentary days considered this scheme. The Committee endeavoured to examine completely and to understand thoroughly every feature of the scheme. I have heard it said that the road to Hull is paved with good intentions. There is no doubt that the promoters of this road to Hull had many difficulties to compete with in promoting this scheme. The hon. Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has graphically described the dimensions of the central span of this bridge, and I would like to give one or two other figures. The proposed bridge will cross the Humber at a point where the water is one and a quarter miles wide. With its approaches the bridge will have a
total length of three and a quarter miles. In addition to the main span of 900 feet there are two anchor spans, on either side of the main span, of 475 feet each, and there are 13 subsidiary spans of 315 to 350 feet each. The site of the bridge is just about two miles from the inland extremity of the Hull Docks. Its approximate cost is estimated at £1,790,000. It will take about three years to build. It could be begun in three months after the powers are obtained, would employ 900 men in its construction and 1,200 men in preparing materials. One has only to glance at a map of England to realise the necessity for a bridge across the Humber, provided it can be built without any real hindrance or difficulty to navigation. From the sea to Booth Ferry, which is between 50 and 60 miles inland, there is no bridge of any kind. The City of Hull has a population of more than 300,000, the East Riding of Yorkshire has 168,000 people and the county of Lincoln 613,000.
The chief criticism centring about this proposal concerns possible interference with the navigation of the river. It is argued that the piers of the bridge might cause scouring and silting in the river, and so alter the channels as to make navigation more difficult or, possibly, altogether impossible. Evidence was taken from eminent experts in engineering, experts in the control of navigable channels and estuaries and from a considerable number of ship masters and pilots. Certain amendments to the first proposals were made by the Committee, and in the end the Committee approved the preamble unanimously, with a recommendation to which I will refer in a few moments. At the site of the proposed bridge the channel is fairly permanent. Since 1828 there has been practically no change in the channel at that part of the river. The three centre spans of the bridge will extend over a total length, with two piers intervening, of 1,850 feet, and that will cover any variation of the channel which has occurred at any time during the past century or is likely to occur at any future time. From the site of the bridge, travelling up river, the channel is winding and changeable, always difficult and uncertain, dangerous in fog or storm. The navigable channel above the site of the bridge, travelling towards the port of Goole, is, in places,
no more than 800 feet in width, whereas the main span of the bridge alone is 900 feet in width.
The Committee expressed the opinion that training walls are desirable and that the construction of training walls should proceed at the same time as the construction of the bridge. I have heard the question "What are training walls?" asked from this side of the House. Proposals for training walls are no new thing as regards the Humber. In 1913 eminent engineers reported upon training walls for the Humber. In the upper reaches of the river, at the confluence of the Ouse and Trent, training walls have been constructed. We believe they are answering their purpose perfectly well. Training walls are walls or banks built in the bed of the river for the purpose of forming and maintaining a navigable channel. I understand that training walls do not always show themselves at all states of the tide, but often are totally immersed at high tide. They are marked out with buoys and lights throughout the whole of their length. If the training walls as proposed or planned in 1913 were constructed in the Humber they would form a deep-water, safe, navigable channel, and that certainly does not exist to-day.
If the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith) were carried it would not, in my opinion, have the effect that its sponsors desire. The building of both bridge and training walls would be deferred indefinitely. The Humber Conservancy Board are the people in control of this river from the point where it enters the sea to the point of the confluence of the Ouse and the Trent. The Humber Conservancy Board are the only people who can construct the training walls. They are the people who had plans prepared, and who have actually carried out the provision of some training walls in the upper reaches of the river. The Committee feel very strongly that the building of the bridge should not ho hindered because those training walls, already planned, have not been carried out be completion. It is the opinion of the Committee that whether there is a bridge or not training walls are desirable, even essential, to the safe maintenance of navigation up to the Port of Goole. What the Mover of the Amendment wants is exactly what the Committee feel it is
desirable to obtain, but the effect of the new Clause would be to stop the building of the bridge, and therefore, in effect, stop the building of these training walls for an indefinite period. The Committee are satisfied that the bridge will not have a prejudicial effect on the navigation of the Humber. We hold the opinion that whether the bridge is built or not the construction of training walls will be a benefit to navigation. We believe that the bridge would be a help rather than a hindrance to navigation when training walls are built. It would guide shipping into the right channel. Finally, in the general interests of trade and commerce, which depend so largely on adequate means of road transport in these days, we feel that a case is made out for this bridge across the Humber, and I hope that a Third Reading will be given to this Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY: I intervene only for one moment to ask one or two questions of the Minister of Transport. We have heard a good deal about the great advantages this scheme would have for Hull, about the terrible catastrophies which are to happen to Goole if the bridge is built, and a good deal about training walls, but as regards finance which, after all, is a very important matter, the only enlightenment has been the statement of the hon. Member who was chairman of this important committee, that the total cost will be round about £1,750,000. I want the Minister of Transport to enlighten us in regard to the finance of this Measure. I believe I am right in saying—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the money for this bridge is to be found as to three-quarters of it from the Road Fund, as to one-eighth from the local authorities, and as to one-eighth from tolls. I think that substantially represents the financing of this enterprise. I want to know for how many years it is proposed to levy these tolls? I am sure that we all hate the idea of tolls, and want to see them abolished. I share the hatred of toll bridges, although I admit that when I was Minister of Transport on two occasions I sanctioned tolls, one in the case of the Mersey Tunnel and another in order that the necessary finances might be found. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the term
for which these tolls will be imposed will be a short period? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot raise the money in some other way, I hope he will limit the number of years for which the tolls have to be paid.
I would like to know how the money is to be found out of the Road Fund. We know that in the Finance Bill permission was given to borrow £9,000,000 from the Treasury during the present year to finance certain works for unemployment. We also know that that £9,000,000 is only part of £49,500,000 which it is proposed to spend on road and bridge works, financed, as to two-thirds, by the Road Fund, and, as to one-third, by the local authorities. I want to know whether any part of the three-quarters of the £1,750,000, which has to be found for this bridge, is included in the figures which I have quoted, or is entirely a new burden upon the motorists who find the money for the Road Fund. I am not arguing whether the bridge is a good or a bad scheme, but I want to know the exact amount which the right hon. Gentleman is to find, and whether it is included in the sum of £49,500,000 which is to be spent within the next five years for the relief of unemployment.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The right hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) is quite right when he says that the estimated cost of this proposal is £1,750,000, 75 per cent. of which will be contributed from the Road Fund. The corporation of Kingston-upon-Hull will contribute £200,000; the county council of Lindsey, Lincolnshire, £30,000; the Barton Urban District Council, £10,000; the corporation of Beverley, £3,000; the Hessle Urban District Council £2,000, and the Cottingham Urban District Council, £1,000. The East Riding of Yorkshire County Council at first refused to contribute to the cost of the bridge, but during the Committee stage of the Bill they have undertaken to contribute £600 a year towards the maintenance of the bridge. It has been provided that the balance will be met by the capitalisation of a revenue from tolls for a limited period, so as to relieve the burden upon the local authorities who took the view that it was quite legitimate that those who will directly benefit by the bridge should contribute tolls for a limited period to ease that part of the financial burden
which the local authorities would be called upon to bear. That is the reason why tolls for a limited period have been allowed. It will be found, on reference to Clause 71 of the Bill, that powers are given for the tolls to be imposed, and it is provided that:
(4) The power to demand, take and recover tolls conferred by this Act shall cease and determine—

(a) On the thirty-first day of March immediately following the date upon which the whole of the excess sum has been paid off, and the contingency fund has reached the maximum determined as aforesaid; or
(b) on the expiration of 10 years from the completion of the bridge;

whichever shall be the earlier.
The tolls must finish at the end of 10 years, but it is also provided
that the Minister may from time to time after consultation with the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the application of the Board, by order allow tolls to be demanded taken and recovered for such longer period than that prescribed by paragraph (b) of this sub-section as may be specified in such order in order to secure not only the repayment of the excess sum hut also the formation of the contingency fund up to the maximum to be determined as aforesaid,
I think that will meet the points which have been raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The contribution to this scheme is included in the £50,000,000 in connection with the Road Fund which has been indicated from time to time as the broad commitment of that fund. This scheme has been approved in principle by the Minister of Transport, and is a commitment upon the Road Fund. It is not a new liability incurred since the discussion took place on the Road Find in regard to the Finance Bill. I make no complaint that the hon. Member for Pontefract and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) have raised the questions which they have raised during the discussion to-night. It is inevitable that the hon. Member, who has the Port of Goole in his constituency, has to consider the effect of the erection of this bridge, and it is the duty of the hon. Member to voice the views and fears of his constituents, and take whatever steps he thinks are necessary in order to protect the interests of that area. I would remind the House that the new Clause which my hon. Friend has moved reads as follows:
The bridge and other works by this Act authorised shall not be commenced until a
local Act has been passed authorising the construction of suitable training walls for the protection of the navigation of the River Humber and containing a provision requiring such training walls to be constructed simultaneously with the construction of the bridge.
That really means, and the House must be clear about this, that, if the Humber Conservancy does not come to a decision to construct training walls, or promote legislation for that purpose, it is absolutely in the power of the Conservancy, under that Clause, to determine if and when this bridge scheme shall be proceeded with. In fact, it gives them a complete veto as to whether the bridge shall be proceeded with or not. I do not wish to revive controversy which is past, and which was very difficult at the time, but this is analogous to the Catholic Amendment which, as the House will remember, was incorporated by a majority in the Education (School Leaving Age) Bill, and which rendered it impossible for that Bill to be proceeded with unless certain things were done. It undoubtedly gives complete power to the Conservancy to say whether or not the bridge shall be constructed. It is perfectly true that the Hull Corporation desires this Bill to be proceeded with and the bridge to be constructed, firstly, because Hull is somewhat cut off, and it desires improved navigation. Many take the view that the construction of this bridge will lead to important industrial developments in Lincolnshire, and that is probably why the Lindsey County Council is contributing to the cost and is anxious that it shall be proceeded with.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean improved communication, or navigation?

Mr. MORRISON: I am talking of road navigation at the moment.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I did not understand the term "road navigation."

Mr. MORRISON: I beg pardon. It is a term which in certain circumstances it is permissible to use, but I mean road communication. That is probably the reason why the Lindsey County Council is contributing. If one looks at the geographical position of Kingston-upon-Hull, undoubtedly its position is somewhat awkward, and the journey that people have to make in order to get to
the other side of the river is a very serious one. Therefore, provided that the bridge does not damage the proper and legitimate interests of navigation, I think that everyone in the House would agree that prima facie it is a legitimate bridge to consider, and ought to receive favourable consideration from the House of Commons. The second point is that the Hull Corporation desire it to be done, other authorities desire it to be done, and the Government desire it to be done in order that it may stimulate employment and provide work for a considerable number of people; though I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, if that employment cannot be secured without damaging very important interests concerned with the navigation of the river and the Port of Goole, that is a perfectly legitimate point to put against the employment aspect of the scheme.
Before the Bill was introduced, there was a long series of discussions with the local authorities, concerned partly on the merits of the scheme, and also, as is always the case, on the question as to who was to pay for it, and particularly who was not to pay for it. In these discussions, after we had agreed on the form of the financial partnership between the State and the local authorities, I took steps to bring together the local authorities and the navigation interests, including their technical advisers, with a view to getting agreement so far as we could, and extending to the navigation interests all the legitimate protection that could be given in a Bill.

Captain Sir BURTON CHADWICK: By the navigation interests, does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Humber Conservancy?

Mr. MORRISON: There are the Rivers Aire and Calder, and the Port of Goole. We brought them all together to see whether they could not arrive at agreement. It is not always easy to get bridge builders and navigation people to agree, and very great difficulties were found to begin with. Unfortunately, we did not succeed in getting full agreement between the two interests, but I was advised that on balance the scheme was a sound scheme, and that there was no need to be apprehensive about the navigation being seriously damaged, or about the navigation interests being seriously
damaged; and, therefore, I indicated that there would be a grant from the Road Fund, and gave support to the Bill. There can be no doubt that the Bill has had adequate consideration from the Commitee upstairs, and I can only hope that everyone has had value for the money which has been spent there. There have been 32 days' consideration by a House of Commons Committee, and there will be some more days in a Committee of the House of Lords. It has cost the promoters about £28,000; I do not know what it has cost the opponents. Of that sum, about £21,000 will be paid from the Road Fund.
Undoubtedly, the Committee upstairs, under the Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Raynes), gave the Bill very serious detailed consideration. A series of points were raised by the navigation interests. The first was as to the danger of shifting of the main channel consequent upon the building of the bridge. The second was the possible effect that the construction of the piers might have in producing scour, and consequent silting; and the third was as to the danger to navigation. I will not say that these various points have been met to the entire satisfaction of the petitioners, but an endeavour has been made to meet them by various Amendments which have been incorporated in the Bill and have been accepted by the promoters. It is affirmed by the promoters, with the support of a good deal of engineering opinion, though I quite agree that this has been contested by other able engineers, that the general effect of the bridge is to stabilise the channel rather than to endanger it, but provision has been made in the Bill that, if at any time, as a consequence of the construction of the bridge, any alteration takes place in the main channel of the river to such an extent that the navigation of the river is materially prejudiced thereby, the Board—that is to say, the Bridge Board, shall take such steps for the protection of the navigation as may be agreed between the Board and the Conservancy Board, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by arbitration.

Colonel ASHLEY: Where do the Bridge Board get the money from with which to do these necessary works?

Mr. MORRISON: That would be the responsibility of the local authorities. It would be competent for them to apply for State assistance, if any State assistance was eligible, but the responsibility is accepted by the Bridge Board, which represents the local authorities who are contributing to the cost of the bridge. If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking that the Road Fund is committed, I may say that I understand that that is not the case. No doubt arguments will ensue, but that is not the position at the present moment under the Bill. Under the Bill the Bridge Board is held responsible. There was a second apprehension that, from natural causes consequent upon the building of the bridge, there might be danger, and a very similar provision is made if as a result of natural causes the navigation should be damaged in that way. The third point is that, if the training walls were constructed, and their position proved wrong as a consequence of the building of the bridge, then again, if that is proved to be the case, or is agreed to be the case, some liability is accepted by the promoters of the Bill. Finally, on the point as to any prejudicial results due to silting, again there is provision in the Bill that, if that is proved to be the case or is agreed to be the case, the Board undertake to execute such dredging or other works as are reasonably necessary in consequence thereof. Therefore I suggest that on the points of objection which have been raised the promoters have gone a long way to meet the opponents of the Bill, and it only remains to see whether it is possible for them to go any further.
It has been argued before the Committee, and it has been impressed upon me, that the training walls are an essential part of the construction of the bridge. I am not advised that the bridge will involve or create the necessity for training walls. The evidence is, and the fact is not disputed, that as long ago as 1913 the Humber Conservancy instructed engineers to investigate and report upon the necessity for training walls. The engineers did report, and they recommended that training walls should be constructed; and it is not my fault, nor the fault of the Corporation of Kingston-upon-Hull, that the Conservancy has not constructed training walls to the extent recommended by the engineers. Something has been done, but
it is relatively small. I must beware of the danger that, because a Bill for the construction of a road bridge across the river comes along, the opportunity may be taken by the Conservancy Board to get a job done at the expense of the Road Fund and of the local authorities which was admitted to be desirable on grounds of navigation and the conservation of the river as long ago as 1913.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will, no doubt, have had the experience that I have had. When schemes come along, someone in the surrounding areas says, "Here is a chance for us to get something out of the Road Fund," and it is my duty, as guardian of the Road Fund, not to allow it to be used for a purpose for which it is not contributed. I had the same trouble with the Charing Cross Bridge. Someone said it meant that I must improve the roads from the north of the bridge to goodness knows where, and, if I had not been careful, I should have been landed with 75 per cent. grants all the Way to Tottenham. I said, "We are not rebuilding London and this contribution has to stop somewhere." I do not blame the Conservancy at all if someone says, "Here is someone who badly wants a bridge. We ought to have done it in 1913. Let us see what we can do to get a substantial contribution out of the Road Fund." They did not know that I had not any Road Fund at the moment. The Chancellor is not raiding the Road Fund at the moment. I am raiding him. It would be a wrong purpose to put the Road Fund to.
I will say this to my hon. Friend. It is as far as I can go. If it is not as far as he wishes, I shall not complain if he does not accept it. I cannot promise grants out of the Road Fund for training walls for rivers. That is a long cry from motor traffic. But if the officers of the bodies concerned with navigation—not necessarily the Hull Corporation, because they are not a navigation authority—come together and get an agreed scheme for training walls, and if it is submitted to the appropriate committee, which, I presume, would be the Unemployment Grants Committee, for State assistance in a way that would be proper under the Development Act, the President of the Board of Trade and I will give the matter fair and proper consideration with a view
to seeing whether it would be possible to make a grant from the appropriate fund as an unemployment scheme. I cannot promise a grant. I cannot go as far as that. I do not think it would be right to press me as far as that, but, if a sound scheme is put up by the appropriate conservancy people, and if it is agreed by the technical people, we will give it fair and not unfriendly consideration before reporting to the Unemployment Grants Committee upon it as a scheme which should receive assistance under the Development Act, 1929.
For these reasons, I suggest that this Clause, which really puts the question of the bridge at the mercy of the Conservancy, ought not to be carried. The Hull Corporation and the county council have gone a long way to meet the objections that have been raised and in the circumstances, in view of the great importance of this from the point of view of transport, and in view of its unemployment aspects, the Bill, which has had a long and serious consideration upstairs, might be allowed to amble its way up the corridors to their Lordships' House and have proper consideration there.

Mr. T. SMITH: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his offer, may I ask if he will use his influence to get these bodies together. Could he say anything on that point?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot admit that training walls are an essential part of the scheme, otherwise I should be on the slippery slope. But, if the training wall people put up proposals and desire consultation with the other people, and there is any difficulty about it, and the Ministry of Transport can lend its offices to bring the appropriate people together, whoever they are, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. SMITH: I do not see any use in persisting with the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy Chairman.]

Sir B. CHADWICK: I was going to register strong opposition to the Bill but,
in view of all that the Minister has said, I shall not continue my opposition. My objection is on behalf of the shipping industry, which has not been mentioned yet. If the training wall scheme is decided upon, it is going to add an enormous burden to shipping, for it would have to be paid for by the Conservancy by raising dues on shipping using the ports of the Humber.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): There is no provision, as far as I know, for training walls in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Sir B. CHADWICK: Surely the Minister has just expressed willingness——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now on the Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman himself indicated quite clearly that a training wall was not included in the construction of the bridge.

Mr. HANNON: Is not the construction of these training walls an essential part of the scheme?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Whether they are an essential part of the scheme or not, they are not in the Bill, and we are on the Third Heading, and we are confined to what is in the Bill.

Mr. HANNON: Surely the Minister himself dwelt on the importance that the walls play in the scheme.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That was on a new Clause which the House did not accept on the Report stage.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I represent the Port of Grimsby, which is also on the Humber, and which will undoubtedly be affected by the passing of this Bill. I was going to support it for this reason, that, if the river channel will be altered by the construction of the bridge and the ports of Hull and Goole will be silted up and, therefore, ships will not be able to enter those ports, as the representative of Grimsby, which is further to the East and, therefore, will not be affected by this moving of the channel, I ought to welcome the Bill and the building of the bridge because then we should indeed be able to say that Grimsby and Immingham would become the Liverpool of the East coast. But I also represent in my
constituency part of the County of Lindsey, and so really I am representing two authorities in the matter. The county council of Lindsey certainly desire that the Bill should receive a Third Reading, so I am in the very happy position that I can really say that, if a Third Reading is accorded to it, it will be satisfactory to both parts of my constituency.
But there is a question that I am satisfied that we can raise on the Third Reading, and that is the question whether there will be further expense to the ports along the Humber bank. If such a thing happens as we are told may happen, there is liable to be an expenditure of something like £500,000 on putting right what some people think this bridge will make wrong. Other ports than Goole and Hull will have to pay their quota towards any measures that have to be taken to remedy any trouble that is caused by the building of the bridge.
I do not think that the charging of tolls in respect of the use of the bridge will meet with the general approval of the people on the Lincolnshire side at any rate. I recognise that the Government have given, by way of grant, a substantial sum, but the City of Kingston-upon-Hull ought to contribute far more than£200,000. If any one is going to get any real benefit from the bridge, it will be Kingston-upon-Hull. That is why the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) and the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) have been such strong advocates of the bridge. I have been wondering how on earth we really can give the Third Beading to the Bill in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), for to deal with such a momentous question as this in his absence is almost inconceivable. I am satisfied, after hearing what the Minister of Transport has said as to his intentions in the matter, that it is wise and proper to give the Bill the Third Reading.
Those who represent the districts further up the Humber from where the bridge will be constructed will be satisfied with the promise that has been given. But I would warn the Minister of Transport that it is not wise to take too much notice of experts, I listened to some of the evidence given before the
Committee and I have heard that evidence commented upon by men who have navigated the river for 40 or 50 years. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport that the bulk of the old navigators of the river are satisfied that it Will be a question of spending a considerable sum of money in keeping the channel of the river as it ought to be kept. I noticed in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that he said that at this particular part of the Humber there had been no alteration in the channel for something like 80 years. That may be so. But it is a fact—and he knows that it was given in evidence—that the mere sinking of a vessel in another part of the Humber a little further up caused a considerable difference in the channel. Those who know the estuary realise that in spite of what experts may say there are difficulties with which you do not meet in any other estuary throughout the united Kingdom. I welcome the promise the right hon. Gentleman has given to try and get the people together who are interested in this matter, although I think that it will be more a question for his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: It may well be more a question for the Board of Trade, but my right hon. Friend authorises me to say that the promise I made will equally apply to him.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am glad to hear that, because the people in my constituency are deeply interested. If it comes to a question of payment we shall have to find our quota. If there should be a charge upon shipping, it will affect Goole, Hull, Immingham, and any other port upon the river, and that is why I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is to try and get the people together. We realise that something ought to have been done before, but something certainly will have to be done after the bridge has been constructed, and if the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Transport will use their good offices immediately to get together the people who are interested, I am satisfied that their action will cause the utmost satisfaction to the people who have to carry on their business and earn their living at the ports on the Humber. I am glad to see that the President of the
Board of Trade has just come into the Chamber. I would tell him that we have been discussing as to whether we could get together the local authorities and others concerned from both sides of the Humber so as to discuss the question of the future of the channel of the river and what should be done. We have received a promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport that he will, in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, do something in the matter of getting people together. I was urging that it ought to be done as quickly as possible. One does not know how long the fund will last from which grants may be made towards schemes for relieving unemployment, and if anything is going to be done, the sooner the better. Speaking on behalf of my constituency, I intend to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir B. CHADWICK: May I refer to a matter upon which you called me to order just now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I was speaking of the training walls that may have to be put into the river, and on looking at Clause 46 of the Bill I find the words:
Subject to the provisions of this Act the board may make on or in the banks, bed, soil and foreshore of the river.
Therefore, I submit that the Minister has a responsibility in respect of any training walls that may have to be made in the future, and it was merely on that ground and because he had consented to make representations, should an occasion arise, to the proper authorities in the hope of getting assistance. It was in regard to that that I was withdrawing my opposition and expressing my appreciation, because I realised the very serious effect upon shipping interests of the country of having even a penny added to their expenses at the present time.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: I wish to emphasise what has just been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Sir B. Chadwick). There has been nothing said in the course of the Debate upon the question of what charges, if any, would fall upon the shipping trade which uses the port of Hull and other ports on the Humber. The margin available under the present system of charges in the Humber only amounts to £1,000 a year, and even if the
maximum charges were put upon shipping the total surplus above the present cost would only amount to £14,000. I need hardly say that shipping could not contemplate a rise in charges to that extent, although a figure of that sort is infinitesimal when dealing with great contracts.
I wish to impress upon the Minister the fact that the position of the shipping interests should be met, just as the other position has been met, by some undertaking that there is not going to be an increased charge upon shipping as a result of the construction of the bridge or the works connected with it. I have had some experience of reading estimates of what may happen when bridges and other river works are carried out and changes in the course of a river follow. I should be very chary of giving undertakings such as were given by the hon. Member on behalf of the city of Hull. I hope that the city of Hull will never be called upon to meet any of the immense charges which will be necessary if the bed of the river is really in any way seriously altered by the construction of the bridge. I am not going to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill, but I wish to make it clear that the shipping interests using the port of Hull and other ports of the Humber cannot afford to pay extra charges which may become necessary unless some undertaking to the contrary is given with regard to an immense work which may be necessary as a result of the building of the bridge.
It has been stated that possibly it is far better to build the bridge first and then see through what channel the river would run. That is a very dangerous procedure. It would be very much safer to build training walls first and be sure that your bridge was going to span the river. It might very well be that your deep water channel might not be where you expected it when the training walls eventually had to be constructed. However that may be, the Minister of Transport has given an undertaking to do his utmost to come to an agreement regarding the training walls which the Committee themselves have announced are absolutely necessary and must be carried out and ought to be carried out at the same time. Can he give us a further undertaking that, whatever the movement by which these training walls or other works are
carried out, whatever the authority, there will not be extra charges placed upon the shipping using the Humber? If he can give us that undertaking, there will be no opposition from shipping interests, although there are other things which affect shipping, in addition to that liability. There is, of course, the danger that may be caused to shipping through the building of the bridge in that position. I realise, however, that there are a great many advantages in having the bridge. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, whether he can give us any undertaking that there will not be an unreasonable claim made upon the shipping using the port of Hull and other ports on the Humber as a result of the building of the bridge.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I want to raise one small but important point, and that is the question of the silting of the Ancholme drainage. I understand that under the Bill there is no power to dredge except for two miles above the bridge. If so, that is a very dangerous situation. In the Bill certain new Clauses have been added, and although the Ancholme Commissioners think that the Minister has done his best, they realise that, on account of the way that the Preamble has been drafted, it is impossible to meet them. I would like to know what the Minister is going to do. If the outfall is choked and they cannot go high up to deal with the matter, who is going to do the work? The result will be that the land will be waterlogged. I am not quite satisfied who is going to do the work. The wording of the Bill is doubtful. Moreover, the liability of the promoters is limited, and the result may be that if the land becomes waterlogged, the farmers will have to pay. I should like to know from the Minister of Transport what will happen in that case. I presume that the Government are going to pay. The Bill is to be opposed in the House of Lords by the Ancholme Drainage Board. I should like to know whether the outfall can be kept clear. If so, all will be well. If not, I would ask the Minister of Transport to insert words in the Bill which will enable the outfall to be kept clear. If the Title of the Bill is not sufficiently wide to enable that to be done, I hope that the Minister of Transport will promote a Bill to give him sufficient power.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. QUIBELL: The proposed bridge will be in my constituency and a large part of the under-banking and the Ancholme drainage is in my constituency. Therefore, I feel that I can speak on behalf of the people I represent. So far as the bridge is concerned, the whole of North Lincolnshire, the Lindsey County Council and the urban districts are in favour of it, and not the least enthusiastic in support of it is Scunthorpe, a town of 40,000 population. We are very anxious that the bridge should be constructed, because we have no outlet except by proceeding west by Booth Ferry Bridge, and then going on to Hull. We think that this link between Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, two great agricultural counties, should be provided. Hull provides a fine market for agricultural produce. Therefore, so far as North Lincolnshire is concerned the new bridge will be of very considerable benefit. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith) put down his Amendment in order that he might receive some assurances.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That has been disposed of.

Mr. QUIBELL: I wonder if hon. Members have had any great personal experience in crossing the Humber?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: We all have.

Mr. QUIBELL: I have been anchored in it. I have been held up at New Holland Pier from 10 o'clock in the morning until 3.30 in the afternoon, before I could get across. If my hon. Friends had had as many experiences as I have had in being held up in crossing the Humber from New Holland to Hull, I fancy that we should not have heard some of the statements that have been made in connection with this Bill. So far as that ferry is concerned, it is precisely the same ferry that it was 45 years ago. It gives no more convenience. The only thing that has altered has been the structure of the bridge. I am very delighted to think that the Bill has been received so favourably, and my desire is to say a few words in its support, as a representative of North Lincolnshire.
So far as the Ancholme Commissioners are concerned, the Ancholme runs through my constituency, and it is no rare thing now, without the bridge, for
the land of that area to be flooded. Last year, a farmer wrote to me and asked me to send a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture to look at bulls swimming in his sugar beet fields. It is a tall order for the Ancholme Commissioners to be opposing this Bill on the ground that it will affect the drainage of their area, when pictures of that sort can be seen after there has been wet weather. It seems to me to be an absolute crime that the Ancholme Commissioners should spend money in opposing this Measure when money is so badly needed for carrying out effectively the drainage of the Ancholme area. I gather that the promoters of the Bill have endeavoured to meet the Ancholme Commissioners. They have also endeavoured to meet the Humber Conservancy Board and every other point of view. It has been very difficult to satisfy everybody concerned. I think the Clause which deals with the Ancholme Commissioners meets their point of view. I am not quite satisfied in my own mind that the Hull Commissioners care very much about Goole. I fancy they are of the same mind as the hon. Member for Grimsby, who is more concerned about Grimsby than he is about Hull. Probably Goole has been putting its money on the wrong horse. They ought to have been supporting the Bill——

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent the Hull Conservancy Board, and I would ask him to correct that statement, because they have looked after the interests of all the ports on the Humber equally with those of Hull and Grimsby, and it is not fair to say that they have favoured one port more than another.

Mr. QUIBELL: All I can say is that if they had been concerned about the River Humber they would have made a serious attempt to put a scheme into operation before now. I am pleased that the Bill has been received so favourably and I hope it will receive a unanimous passage through the House and favourable consideration elsewhere.

Mr. HANNON: I think we ought to have some information as to how the toll charges have been arrived at, they are out of all reason to charges for crossing
other bridges. A brougham or cab will have to pay 28., a cart 2s., a float 2s.—and those are vehicles which may be engaged in the transport of agricultural commodities—a lorry or wagon 2s. 6d.

Sir JAMES SEXTON: May I ask whether the port of Birmingham is affected by this Bill at all?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It does not matter whether Birmingham is affected or not. The hon. Member is exercising his right as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. HANNON: I am really astonished that the hon. Member should interrupt in that way. He has always been a protagonist of fair play for every industry in the country. In my judgment these are abnormal charges. My right hon. and gallant Friend the ex-Minister of Transport deprecated the continuance of tolls at all.

Colonel ASHLEY: In any remarks that I have made I have always deprecated the imposition of tolls.

Mr. HANNON: That is what I have just said. My right hon. and gallant Friend could not have been listening. The difficulty of our Front Bench is that they do not listen to the back benchers, and I respectfully suggest that if they would listen more wisdom would sometimes display itself on the Front Bench. There is to be a toll of 3s. 6d. for a hearse. Some poor person who is being laid to his last resting place will have to pay 3s. 6d. for being taken across this bridge. An ambulance will have to pay 2s., and a bicycle and sidecar, one of those vehicles which convey so many people to the countryside on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, conveying the man's best girl, will have to pay 9d. toll. The House should be informed of the reasons for these abnormal charges. A public service vehicle carrying 14 people pays 5s. In Waterford in the south of Ireland one of the most useful bridges across the River Suir carries everything for a toll of ½d., and only 3d. for an Irish sidecar, yet here in this enlightened country these abnormal charges are to be imposed on the travelling community. This is the most disgraceful part of the whole Bill. I am not going to divide the House, but I think we ought to have more information as to the reason for these charges.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should not have taken part in this Debate except for the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), which does deserve an answer from the Government, in which he called attention to the Second Schedule of the Bill. I should like to know why the charge should be 4d. for a perambulator mail-cart, go-cart or bath-chair, and 2s. 6d. for a street organ. It may be that as the man with a street organ might utilise it on the way across for making up his fee this extra charge is imposed. But these charges are excessive. Why should it be 8d. for a horse or donkey; and why should it be the same charge, 1½d., for a sheep as for a pig. Pigs are much more likely to create difficulties than sheep. Sheep are easily led, like members of the Socialist party opposite are led by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). They can be sent any way you like if you know the right way to deal with them. I would also like the Minister of Transport to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) about the training walls. It is a most vital question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was in the House when an Amendment dealing with that matter was disposed of.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was in the House——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Training walls do not come under the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Of course, I accept that position absolutely and entirely. Therefore, in spite of Clause 36, we have a Bill in which it is proposed to build a bridge which has nothing to do with training walls. That makes the position very much worse, and if we had known earlier many of us might have opposed the Bill from the beginning.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There was a discussion on training walls, and the hon. Member had an opportunity of understanding the position.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I admit quite frankly' that I was not in the House at the time. I will leave training walls alone for the time being and will not press the Minister for an answer on the subject. I will
pass to the question which was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). That is a question which can be answered. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member has had some conversation with the Minister since. Has the Minister of Transport gone into this matter with the Minister of Agriculture, and is the latter equally satisfied that the farmers above the bridge, or those in any way affected by the scheme, have their position adequately protected? We ought to be assured that there is no danger of the great agricultural districts in that neighbourhood becoming waterlogged. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) talked about bulls swimming in sugar-beet fields. There is the danger of flooding, and I ask the Minister to answer the question put to him on the subject.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I do not follow the point of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I have no doubt there was some point in his speech, but I am afraid that I did not follow it clearly enough to be able to answer it. There was a question as to whether I would give a guarantee that shipping charges would not be increased. At any rate the Bill does nothing to increase them. I cannot give a guarantee as to the policy of the conservators on that point. There was the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), The Ancholme Commissioners are specifically mentioned in the Bill. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) raised a point as to cars going over the bridge being charged 2s. A car goes over a ferry of some sort now and has to pay anything between 8s. and 10s. This bridge will save nearly two hours on the journey, and if that is not worth 2s. I do not know what is. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has been so infected by the municipal Socialism of Birmingham, in common with other Conservative Members of that city, that he has got into the habit of wanting everything for nothing. We shall have to be careful about these revolutionary tendencies on the part of hon. Members opposite. I suggest that when a scheme saves anything between 6s. and 10s, in money or saves 22 miles on a journey, even the hon. Member for Moseley, who has witnessed the great advantages of municipal Socialism in Birmingham, ought not to begrudge the 2s.; and even
if the hon. Member is buried ultimately in the region of Hull I suggest that he ought not to begrudge 3s. 6d. for a hearse.

Mr. HANNON: Do I understand that 6s. to 8s. is paid to cross by the ferry now?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 240 and 263 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

COAL MINES BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: When our proceedings were interrupted I was dealing with the very serious menace to the coal industry which is furnished By the development of oil. Oil is becoming the principal means of transport in the world. Almost all the steamers in the East, large and small, are driven now by oil fuel. A few years ago there was an enormous traffic to all parts of the world in British coal. Ships went out with coal and came back with merchandise. That trade has almost entirely ceased. Oil fuel is to-day at a price that, for practical competitive purposes, coal would have to be sold at 7s. a ton delivered on board the ship. That cannot be done. Therefore, I deprecated even the Coal Mines Bill that was passed last year. There is really no hope for this obsolescent industry. That is why we have the cry for nationalisation. Whenever an industry is getting out of date it begins to cry to the Government to take it over. All the big liners are now running on oil, and even tramp steamers are adopting this change. The biggest private owners in the country had the prescience seven or eight years ago to perceive what was coming and built over 30 ships to be run by Diesel engines.
Oil is the real danger to the coal trade. The Coal Mines Bill of last year simply endowed the oil interests of the world.
The miners simply handed over their trade; the Miners' Federation foolishly and ignorantly handed over the wages and occupation of their own constituents to the oil interests of the world. Anyone who has been in a ship when coaling, and has seen the toil and the dust that are inevitable, and then has been to St. Vincent or Lisbon and seen one of those long oil ships alongside a steamer, and in two hours has seen hundreds of tons of oil taken on board, almost enough to take the ship round the world and at far less cost—the Diesel engine is used at less than one-fifth of the cost——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Wide discussion is permitted on the Second Reading of a Bill, but what is the connection between this Bill and the subject which the hon. and learned Member is now raising?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am warning the Government and those Members of the House connected with the coal industry that they need place no hope on the Geneva Convention mentioned in Clause 4 of the Bill. It is all very well for the coalowners of the world to meet the men and say, "We will restrict our hours and output to make sure that we get a comfortable price for coal, and comfortable hours of labour, and to ensure that this somewhat harsh occupation of hours is made easier for our men." I have always thought that the miners have been underpaid and have had a very hard life. The one thing that is creditable to the mining industry is that it has turned out so splendid a body of men. But the real enemy of the coal trade is now the oil industry. It is time that the coal industry adopted different methods and made sure that the customers were convinced that they could always get orders fulfilled and would not be hung up by disturbances. Unless that is done there is a very black outlook for the coal trade. The other day I saw in Scotland one of the beautiful new ships provided for the West Highland transport. There was an economy and freedom from cost as compared with coal which was so gigantic that they were proposing to replace the old engines in the other ships.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All this is going very far away from the discussion of the principle of the Bill.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am simply pointing out that this Bill will not save the industry. Something very much more drastic is needed. It is not nationalisation that is needed. There is no use in the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) talking about prosperity in some of the mines because, of course, there are some which are prosperous. Every mine has a character of its own, and you cannot rationalise them all. To talk about reorganisation is no good, because it does not alter the fact that one pit is in one place and another pit in another place, and they all have a different character. That is not going to help the industry at all. The harm that is being done is that now that the price of coal is practically fixed under last year's Act, it is possible for the competing oil industry to say that it is going no further, and that every shipowner can make the calculation that it will pay him to take to oil. Something much more drastic is necessary. There are far too many men in the coal industry, and fewer will be required as time goes on. Attempts to make a sheltered trade out of it will have the same effect as the Railways Act, 1921, had on transport.
With the oil industry in its present position the coal industry is in the worst possible condition to compete with it. Unless some much wiser method of dealing with the coal trade is adopted, and an attempt is made to get a large number of men out of the industry into some other means of getting their daily bread, there is very little hope for the return of prosperity, because the market for coal is going to be very limited. Unless we get a different method of dealing with this raw material, I see no future for it. The Government, I admit, are on the horns of a dilemma. The position before them is that they have this Act falling out within 48 hours. I wish they had taken a little more time to consider. They need only have intimated that the Act would not come into operation in England, just as it did not in Scotland, and there would have been time for consideration to be given. I think they will find that in relying upon the Miners' Federation they have been relying upon a broken reed, and a body which has shown the greatest possible unwisdom in dealing
with the affairs of its constituents, the working miners.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The House must have regretted that, following upon a Debate in which all the points of this Bill have been very fairly and temperately argued, the Secretary for Mines did not devote himself to replying more on the merits of the proposals which the Government have put before us. He really made no answer to the criticisms which have been advanced against this Bill in several quarters of the House, and not only on this side. He made no answer to the interesting criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) on the wages side, and he gave no answer to some of the very pertinent questions put to him by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) about which I will say a word in a moment. He con-fined himself to making an attack on speakers in different quarters of the House. I am not concerned to repudiate or reply to polemical attacks of the hon. Gentleman on what is far too serious a subject to be dealt with in terms of party controversy.
I would only in one sentence or two deal with what, after all, seemed to be the staple of his speech—that it was our fault that this Bill had to be introduced, Really, that cannot be allowed to pass without a word of reply. His theory was that because when we introduced the Act of 1926 and limited it to a period of five years, we are responsible for everything this Government has done or left un-done. Those who were in the House in 1926 will well remember the bitter criticism which came from the opposite side of the House because that Bill was made to last for a period of five years. I quite agree that hon. Members who felt strongly about it were perfectly sincere and consistent in their argument, and I should like to know what their comments would have been if we had put forward a proposal that the Bill should have been indefinite in its application? Their comments were stringent as it was, but I think they would have been almost un-parliamentary if we had extended the Bill beyond a period of five years. We are all in agreement on that, but, that being so, it is fantastic for the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and say the only reason why this Bill
has to be passed is because we made our Eight Hours Bill last for five years, and not for longer.

Mr. SHIELD: Why did you bring it in at all

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In order to save the coal industry. I would much rather not on this occasion be drawn into the old controversy over that Bill. If I have to be, I will argue the case for it, and show that miners' wages would have come down by 1s. 6d. if that Bill had not been passed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better keep to the Bill.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would much rather do so, and I will be strictly relevant. What the hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten is the Bill in which he had some small part, and in which the President of the Board of Trade had a great part in 1930. The President of the Board of Trade spent nine months of a Session of this Parliament in passing the Bill of 1930 through the House. It was not an easy Bill for him to pilot, because one of the things he had to do was to say at the outset that he could not redeem the pledge to give a 7-hour day. He was very frank. He said it was impossible for them to redeem that pledge, and the most they could do was to redeem it to the extent of 60 per cent., and to put 7½ hours in. Did he make that 7½ hours a provision which was to last until times were better, until the economic blizzard was passed and some Convention had been concluded? Not at all. He made that for one year, and, therefore, the reason why we are here to-day, legislating in this Bill, has nothing whatever to do with the Act of 1926. We are here to-day because the Government have found, quite honestly, that they cannot possibly redeem the 7-hour day promise, and because they have found that the provision which they made in the Act of 1930, to carry on the 7½-hour day for one year, is quite inadequate to meet the situation in which we find ourselves today. I do not propose to say another word on that subject, hut I sincerely hope that, in view of what I have said, the Government will face their own difficulties, and not suggest that those
difficulties were the creation of those who went before them more than a lustre ago. The hon. Gentleman also said that he regretted that there had been a failure to reach settlement by agreement. I profoundly regret it also, for I am perfectly certain that in any industry it is essential to get industrial negotiations out of politics; and that statement applies more to this unhappy industry than to any other. The greatest service which anybody, inside or outside the industry, could render to it would be to take it out of politics and keep it out of politics.

Mr. BATEY: Through whose fault is it in politics?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It does not matter whose fault it is. The hon. Member is dissatisfied. He was very dissatisfied with our Government and he is very dissatisfied with the present Government. As the Prime Minister said, this is a settlement which pleases nobody, but if the result of this settlement which pleases nobody is that the industry itself will try to get a settlement which pleases itself, then the industry will have been taken out of politics with great benefit to itself, and to the rest of the country. But I am bound to say this, in justice to the people who negotiated. I, naturally, have not been a party to these negotiations, and I do not know the details of them, but it seemed to me that the negotiators on both sides were acting with a genuine desire to reach an agreement. That desire appeared in the speech of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. E. Edwards). I believe that he was a keen and broadminded negotiator. I have often criticised, and perhaps all of us in this House have been a little irritated at times with the negotiators on both sides in these coal disputes. But they came to the negotiations this time with a great realisation on both sides of the issues involved and the importance of arriving at a settlement, and they seem to have come very near to reaching a settlement. One of the unfortunate things about this industry—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Morpeth will agree with me in this—is that when he and Mr. Cook and the coalowners meet they are all much more reasonable people when they are talking with each other round a table, without any politicians there, than when they are
talking at each other across a table, with a row of Ministers on the opposite side.
I believe that there is a better chance of getting agreement in this industry if the politicians on all sides can be kept out, and if the industry conducts its negotiations, not at Downing Street, where everybody is going to keep something in reserve, but man to man across a table, with the feeling that they are there to come to an agreement and that it is that agreement which is going to solve the industry's problems. I pay my tribute to those who negotiated on this occasion. I think they came near to a settlement, and I wish profoundly that their settlement had been completed. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines was altogether helpful in the negotiations. It was a profound mistake, surely, when the negotiations were going on to make a speech and to say, that unless the parties came to an agreement, Parliament would do nothing. I cannot conceive anything more embarrassing to the negotiators on both sides than this unfortunate statement by the Secretary for Mines:
Unless the miners and the owners come to an agreement and ask the Government to do something else, there is going to be no legislation to prevent the 7-hour day coming into operation in July. The 7-hour day will come into operation whatever the consequences are in accordance with the pledge that was made by the Socialist party, unless the miners and owners come to us and ask us to do something else in their own interests. If they ask us to do something else, we will, of course, have to listen.
Does the hon. Gentleman deny that that is a correct report?

Mr. SHINWELL: I do not deny it. I justify every word of it, and I have been fortified since I made that statement by a similar declaration from the Prime Minister.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure the hon. Member would not deny the accuracy of the report. He stands by it, and I stand by what I have said—that I cannot imagine anything more embarrassing to the negotiators on both sides than that statement. Of course it bore no relation whatever to the facts. The Prime Minister himself told us to-day that it was inevitable, if the parties did not agree, that the Government should propose this legislation. The Government made their announcement last
Thursday night that the legislation was going to be introduced, and the Bill was introduced before it was known whether there was going to be agreement or not.

Mr. SWINWELL: The right hon. Gentleman is making very ill-informed statements, and I am certainly not prepared to allow that last statement to go. It was clear to everybody concerned in the negotiations that there was not the slightest possibility of reaching agreement, and it was only at that point that the Government decided to introduce legislation.

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: That is exactly what I have said. It was perfectly plain and has always been plain that if the parties failed to come to an agreement the Government would have to act. The Prime Minister announced on Thursday that that was so, and the Prime Minister said in his speech to-day that the parties having failed to reach agreement it was inevitable that the Government should act. I am not quarrelling with what the Prime Minister said or with the Government for taking action, although I criticise the action which they have taken for reasons which I shall state later. What I am criticising now—and I am sure that, on reflection, Members in all quarters of the House will realise that what I say is true—is that the position being that if the parties failed to reach agreement it was inevitable that the Government should impose their settlement on the industry, nothing could have been more unfortunate than that the Secretary for Mines should go down to a by-election in a Welsh mining constituency, and say that unless the parties came to an agreement and asked the Government to act, the Government would do nothing, and the 7-hour day would come whatever the consequences. It was a most mischievous speech, and when the history of these negotiations comes to be written the hon. Gentleman will be found to have been responsible in no small measure for the failure to arrive at agreement.
Let me pass from that to the account which he gave of the Scottish position. It was not very clear, and I do not think it was very fair, and he stated two things which were inconsistent. One was that the Scottish miners do not want this. I speak with no particular knowledge of the Scottish position. If it be the fact that the Scottish miners, uninfluenced
by outside considerations, do not wish to have this spread-over and prefer to take a settlement which will involve them in a reduction of wages rather than to continue to work with a spread-over, I do not think there is a Member on any side of the House who would wish to impose a spread-over on them.
My attitude with regard to the spread-over has always been consistent. The House will remember that I accepted the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade that a spread-over agreed to in a district should be approved by the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association, but in that Debate, which all mining Members will remember took place late one night in the House—and the House found itself then in general agreement—it was common ground to all, I think, that the object of putting in this safeguard that a spread-over must be approved by the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association was not to enable a veto to be put upon a spread-over agreement for outside considerations, but was to ensure that the men in each district should come to an absolutely free and unfettered decision upon it. I accepted it certainly in the interests of the men of the districts, so that they might have an extra guarantee that they were absolutely free and unfettered in the agreement at which they arrived.
Unless it be the free and unfettered desire of the Scottish miners that they should have the spread-over, I should certainly be no party to trying to insist upon a spread-over; but the hon. Gentleman said in the next sentence that Scotland must not be permitted to have the spread-over, that they must not be permitted to obtain advantages in this trade which other districts have not got. That may be a defensible attitude from some points of view, but it is quite inconsistent with the attitude and point of view that what Scotland ought to have is what the Scottish miners genuinely desire. I think I can put the spread-over position fairly from the point of view of the rest of the coalfields when I say that probably to-day, outside Scotland, the miners and the mineowners, on the whole, are against the spread-over in this country, and therefore in Scotland. They have come, whether it is the best arrangement or not, to an agreement in this country in which the spread-over has no
part. They feel that if the spread-over—I am talking now from the point of view of all the English coalfields—is continued in Scotland, that may have its repercussions over the border, and that there may be a movement to renew the spread-over, certainly in Northumberland and Durham, possibly in Lancashire, and possibly in Wales.
Therefore, if I interpret that sense of the English coalfields aright, they feel that there is a conflict of interests between them and Scotland, and that in the interest of the English coalfields, on the whole, they are opposed to Scotland having the spread-over, because if the spread-over comes in Scotland, it cannot be decided quite as a Scottish issue, because, as I say, it may have its repercussions in the English coalfields and reintroduce the spread-over question into the English coalfields. If I have interpreted that position aright—and I think the indications that have come from the other side are that what I have said is rather near the truth as far as the English coalfields are concerned—I do not deny that that is a factor to be taken into account in deciding this House whether the spread-over is right in Scotland. But that point of view has nothing to do with the point of view which the Secretary for Mines tried to take, that it was really a Scottish interest. If you are going to attack the spread-over in Scotland, you must not attack it as a Scottish problem. You must oppose it as a problem of the whole of the mining industry of this country.

Mr. SHINWELL: It was stated by hon. Members opposite that the Scottish miners desired the spread-over. I responded by showing that the Scottish mine-workers had opposed the spread-over through the decision of the Miners' Federation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a rather different thing. What I should have thought was a more important argument to advance was that there had been a meeting in Scotland at which the Scottish miners, meeting alone and outside the Federation, are reported to have voted against the proposal——

Mr. LAWTHER: For the restoration of the spread-over.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps that is the better way of putting it. I
do not know whether that is correct or not, but it seems to me that you are leaving it to chance. You are telling the Scottish miners that they have to accept a reduction of wages. There is no doubt about it, and I do not believe that anybody facing this position frankly believes anything else. They came to an agreement with the spread-over under which they could have certain wages. It is known that there is no possibility of getting a chance in Scotland of paying the same wages without the spread-over, and it is common ground that the spread-over was agreed because, owing to conditions which prevail in many of the Scottish pits, it is economic and much cheaper to work the spread-over. Therefore, you are undoubtedly taking the position in which, if this Bill goes through as it stands, the Scottish miners will have to accept an agreement under which their wages will be reduced, perhaps not largely, but certainly some reduction will have to be suffered.
I do not put it higher than this: Is it wholly incompatible with the interests of the English coalfields, and is it not on the whole perhaps reasonable to Scotland, unless you are quite clear that the Scottish miners have come to a free and unfettered decision upon these facts—to leave open the possibility that Scotland may say, "We would prefer to go on with this spread-over and the existing rates of wages"? I do not put it higher than that, but, as it stands, you are closing the door on the possibility of that, even if the Scottish miners in the end come to the conclusion that that is what they would wish.
I want now to pass to the main criticisms on the Bill. The Secretary for Mines said that he could not understand the criticisms. I should have thought that they were very plainly stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and that, as regards one of the Clauses in the Bill, they were equally plainly stated as regards another by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), Let me take his criticism first. It was—and he made it fully and forcibly—that it is a bad precedent to put the fixing of wages into an Act of Parliament—not the machinery for fixing wages, but the wages themselves. I think it can be said of
this particular proposal that it is not intended to do that, but that what is intended is to take wages and conditions which have been settled by agreement in the different districts in the industry and to continue those for a certain time. I certainly should repudiate here and now this Bill ever after being taken as a precedent for establishing definite minimum wage rates in an Act of Parliament, and I sincerely hope that, if the House pass this Bill, it will not be used as a precedent of that kind.
I am clear that any attempt to fix wage rates in an Act of Parliament is thoroughly unsound. That was plainly borne out by the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley. He put certain very technical but what appeared to me to be very pertinent questions to the Secretary for Mines as to whether certain base rates could be altered outside the provisions of this Bill. I observe that the Secretary for Mines was very careful not to give him any answer at all. I do not know whether the hon. Member has got one since, but he did not get one that was made public to the House. The hon. Gentleman always intervenes in these coal Debates in a most reasonable manner and with great knowledge, and the very fact that he put questions of that kind and that they occurred to him on the Second Reading of the Bill shows how impossible it is to attempt to fix wage rates and conditions in an Act of Parliament. It is one thing to say, "Here is an agreement and that agreement is a possible excuse for the Bill "; but you have not accepted the conditions under which agreement has been arrived at. I take it that what you say is that at any rate——

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that, if it is permissible and discreet to guarantee subsistence wages for a period, it is equally easy to guarantee a basic wage on which the additional percentages are paid.

10.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I dare say it is, but this is not my Bill, and I am not in a position to answer cross-examination on it. I am suggesting that the hon. Gentleman's speech showed, by the very fact that he put these technical and apparently unanswerable questions to the President of the Board of Trade,
how impossible it is to fix conditions inside a Bill. It is, too, against trade union interests. The whole practice of trade unions has been to negotiate and get agreement, or, if necessary, to fight. I am sure that the oldest trade union Members in the House will agree that the power of a union, certainly the power for effective work, is gone if wage rates are put into an Act of Parliament and are not to be settled by negotiation and agreement. The Government accept that, because the Miners' Federation at one time were putting up an appeal to the Government that a minimum wage should be put into an Act of Parliament, but the Government—and I think quite rightly—refused to look at such a proposal, and they must have turned it down on the ground that it is impossible to put wage rates into an Act of Parliament. They come very near to doing it in this Bill. There is another objection to attempting to put wage rates into an Act of Parliament; they are not elastic, and you have to have another Act of Parliament to vary them. If both sides are anxious to get a variation, it is impossible, because an Act of Parliament has laid them down. The other criticism of this Bill is in regard to its temporary character. If it is necessary to impose a settlement in this Bill, it should be a settlement which gives some certainty of security. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is reasonable to propose that whatever you do now should last until the Convention comes in. May I observe, incidentally, that apparently everyone has lost sight of the fact that the Convention, of which the hon. Gentleman is quite reasonably proud, is not a convention for seven hours at all; it is a convention for seven and a quarter hours. Therefore, there is no question of going back to the 7-hour day, if we are, as I agree that we shall have to be, governed by international action in these matters. The proposal to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name, and for which he is claiming such credit, is not for a 7-hour day, but a proposal for a 7¼-hour day. That is a very relevant consideration to bear in mind on this Bill.
One of two things will happen. One possibility is that the Convention will come into force quite soon. I think that
is rather unlikely. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it might be within a year, but I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he thinks that there is a probable chance of that. He has had a good deal to do with Conventions, and he knows that they do not always proceed so rapidly as he would wish. Does he really think that there is a probable chance—I even put it to him that there is a sporting chance—of this International Convention being made effective in the signatory countries within the next 12 months. I should think that the odds are heavily against it, but I am not making a book on it. The President of the Board of Trade knows, and he ought to tell us with his knowledge what probability he attaches to the Convention becoming law in the different countries within 12 months. If he thinks it will become law within 12 months, there is no earthly reason why this Bill should not be made to last during the period uneil the Convention comes in.
There is the other alternative which we must face equally plainly. There is the possibility that the Convention will not be ratified for 12 months, or it may be for a considerable period thereafter. The right hon. Gentleman told us a good deal about the difficult economic conditions of the world, and about the increased competition. I know what the Prime Minister said in his speech to-day. I know the development that is taking place and of the large stocks that there are in Germany; I am told there are 16,000,000 tons of coal and coke in that country. I know the way that Holland is beginning to develop as an export country, I know of the increase of water power, and I, think that probably there will be considerable development in the Mediterranean markets in Russian coal. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is really the least chance that economic conditions will have so changed in the next 12 months that he can introduce a 7-hour Bill into this country? I do not for a moment believe that he does; and, if he does not, and if we have to superimpose a settlement, everything is to be gained by giving a reasonable term of certainty.
The right hon. Gentleman knows the coal industry inside out, and he knows how contracts have, perhaps, been lost lately, and how difficult it will be to get long-term contracts for fear of a dispute. I was asked, and took upon myself to say
to the people who consulted me that I was perfectly certain there would not be a coal strike. I am not sure that I did not speak with more certainty than I ought to have done, but I was going to base myself upon the common sense of my countrymen, and try to get contracts for the coal trade as long as I could. And I know this further, that it is not only the coal trade which is interested. I know of other industries in which foreign buyers were hesitating to place orders because they were not sure whether there would be another stoppage in the coal trade in this country and whether the heavy industries would be able to get coal with which to carry on. I know that sort of thing was present to the minds of the negotiators. That is the price we pay for uncertainty, and to save that uncertainty it would have been worth while to make this Bill last until another certainty can be established. That course has been rejected. The Prime Minister said that was done not because it is hoped to see this thing swing up to a crisis in another 12 months, but in order that immediately this Bill is passed the parties must try to get to work to secure an agreement which is going to last, and please God they will. If they can take this industry out of politics, and keep it out, they will have done a tremendous thing for themselves and for the country. But for Heaven's sake lot us not again leave the negotiations till the eleventh hour. That is not the time at which to negotiate, and I beg of the Government to make sure that these negotiations start early and come to an end early; and if they do not come to an end in reasonable time at any rate do not let us be brought up to a crisis within 48 hours of the Act running out. If Parliament should have to deal with this matter again, and I hope to goodness it will not, let us deal with it a long time beforehand, so that if the industry of itself cannot give certainty Parliament may give it that certainty, in order that it may keep and develop its trade.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: With the concluding sentences of the speech to which we have just listened I find myself in complete agreement, for I believe it is nothing but a misfortune that we should always be having to deal with coal subjects at the eleventh hour. But the right hon. Gentleman himself has had some ex-
perience of the eleventh hour. In 1925, I think it was, he and his Government allowed the crisis in the coal trade to run right up to the month of August, and the result was that we had ultimately to provide about £23,000,0000 as subsidy, very little benefit from which came to this country, a great deal of it going abroad. That was a heavy sum to pay for delaying until the eleventh hour. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it was a mistake then, as it is a mistake to-day. If the Government will allow me to say so, I think they could have done a great service to the coal industry and to this country if they had taken the whole thing in hand long ago. We knew what was to happen in June, 1931, and it would have been far better to reach some sort of an agreement, or at any rate to have put the negotiations further ahead at an earlier date.
I do not wish to lay too much stress on the part that Governments can play in the settlement of these matters, though anyone who has had any experience in the settlement of trade disputes knows perfectly well that the negotiators on both sides do not like settlements made early in the day. They very much like to be able to show that they had to make a great physical struggle, and that it was only at half-past one in the morning that they secured agreement. That is common, knowledge. All of us have seen it who have been in great disputes, I do not remember any settlement which I ever had anything to do with which was arrived at before midnight. It is a great pity, because the trade itself suffers by it, and it would have been much better if a calmer atmosphere, as calm as is exhibited in the House to-day, had prevailed in the coal industry long ago.
I have one or two comments to make on the Bill itself. As nearly every speaker has said, it is an unsatisfactory Bill, and it could scarcely be anything else. It does not do all that the miners want, it does not do all that the coalowners want—although it is extraordinarily difficult to find out what they do want—and it certainly does not appear to satisfy the general public, for they do not know where they will stand a few months hence. Stress has been laid in various speeches on the importance of knowing what conditions are to prevail in the coal trade if we are to secure long-term con-
tracts for supplying coal abroad. The Secretary for Mines did what seemed to be an extremely wise thing immediately he took office. He went on a tour of some of the most difficult markets which this country is now trying to supply. He saw with his own eyes the men who carry on the negotiations for the purchase of British or other coal, and he realised how extraordinarily difficult it is to arrive at terms with the people to whom we wish to sell our coal and how adroit our competitors are in cutting us out. I am sure there will be no argument that he heard then used by our competitors which will not be repeated with redoubled force now that they can say that one knows what is to happen in the English coalfields only a year at a time.
This "year at a time" is the very curse of business, and I cannot imagine that we shall regain our export coal trade unless we can give assurances which will extend over more than 12 months. The long-term contracts to which many of us were accustomed years ago were the very making of the coal trade. We knew where we were. Developments in mines were based on the fact that there were these long-term contracts. Contracts were made—of which the miners were perfectly cognisant—which led to settlements in the trade itself. In fact, nothing had a greater pacifying effect than a very large group of three-year contracts—perfectly well known to the miners as well as to the exporters and the coal-owners. We want to get back to that state of affairs. We cannot do business on a yearly basis.
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that our one hope for the future lies in international agreement. So far as hours of labour are concerned, that appears to be the only way in which we can satisfy the conditions in such a highly competitive industry as the export coal trade. I hope he will make sure that if we bind ourselves down in good faith to a limitation of hours there will be an equally honest bargain in other countries. We must not be too suspicious of what happens abroad, but we have seen before in international agreements a little dodging to get outside the conditions of a convention, arrangements made which in this country would be regarded as not quite playing
the game. If the right hon. Gentleman can so devise his international agreement as to make sure that it will be honestly carried out I believe that really will be the best way of reaching a settlement of stability for the future. It is very well worth while working towards that end, and I certainly wish him every success in his endeavours to attain it.
There is one other thing I wish to say to-night. It is no new thing, but it is justified by what has happened in recent years, and that is that the coal trade is gaining very little by its constant appeals to Parliament. For almost a generation we have been imagining that Parliament can deal with these great industrial and economic subjects with greater wisdom than those who have spent their whole life in those trades Parliament is no wiser than the people outside. The people who send us here are very largely interested in those trades because their whole livelihood depends upon them. There are entire counties which are dependent upon the wise administration of business men, and why should we have to rely in those trades upon a lower degree of general knowledge than is necessary for the administration of international trade. There is a higher degree of knowledge in the coal trade itself and among coalowners, exporters and miners than can be provided in this House. This House is not very well equipped to deal with intricate commercial and business affairs. There are some things which are absolutely necessary in the regulation of businesses, and we are apt to turn far too often to Ministers at 10, Downing Street, for the settlement of the conditions of labour and trade disputes. How infinitely better it would be if the coal trade could steer clear of No. 10, Downing Street and insist upon making its own settlements.
There is a sufficient degree of good sense in the coal trade, if it realises that Parliament does not wish to be bothered and does not regard itself as being properly equipped to deal with these questions, to reach a proper settlement of these disputes. The guidance of the Ministry of Mines and the arrangements made abroad must be supplementary to all these other arrangements, although I do not shut them out. All these disputes only lead to a succession of Bills such as the Act of 1929, which was as unsatisfactory as the Bill we are discuss-
ing to-night. We have to deal with all these things in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I think very little of the Act of 1929 as an industrial achievement. I wish we had never embarked upon that legislation, but we have to take it as we find it. Conditions would have been better if we could have avoided legislation two years ago and got a settlement in the industry itself.
I regret that that Measure was necessary, but hon. Members must not imagine that this Bill will settle the problems in the coal trade, because we are dealing with very serious matters which cannot be settled by an Act of Parliament. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said that the settlement of rates of wages by an Act of Parliament is a pernicious system, and may result in doing more harm than good to the very people whom it seeks to assist. What is much more important is that we should turn our attention in the coal trade and its subsidiary industries from Parliament to the real scientific use of coal. Let me give a single illustration. I am concerned with the management of a vessel which steams 15½ knots per hour. Her sister ship doing the same service consumes between 140 and 150 tons of coal per day. The new vessel which I am now administering steams more than 15½ knots and burns only 46 tons of oil per day. The fuel occupies less space, and goes on board cleaner. What chance has coal against that? Coal is being beaten because we have not been applying the scientific knowledge which our race possesses. I am glad to hear that the Government favour the expenditure of more money upon experiments in producing coal in some other form. I do not say which is the right one, and I do not think anyone knows, but more money might have been spent with advantage on experiments in turning coal into a more useful form, and success would have kept open many collieries which have now been closed down. We should have been making experiments with as much keenness in the coal trade as we have been spending money upon the roads. There is a great deal to be said for facilitating communications ashore—for improving our roadways, building bypasses, and the like; but there is no argument in favour of the extension of our
road services which cannot be put forward with 10 times as much force in favour of pursuing these coal problems. I suggest that, if we wish to proceed along the road of hope, it is rather with the assistance of the scientist than of the politician that we should proceed.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I make no apology for intervening in this Debate. Practically every speaker hitherto has been connected in some way or other with the coal trade, and the House of Commons is representative of every section of the community. I thoroughly agree with a great deal of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). It is an impossible position that any industry, whether it be coal or whether it be agriculture, should feel that it is permanently able to come to the House of Commons and levy a tribute on the House of Commons and the community at large. At the beginning of this Debate, the Prime Minister pointed out clearly that this was emergency legislation—that, unless the House of Commons passed it within 48 hours, we should have a 7-hour day. In other words, the House of Commons is to be threatened at the last minute by the Leader of the House that, unless it passes this legislation, which has been brought about, as we all know, by the muddle that the Government have made of this question, the country will be faced with the great national emergency of a coal stoppage.
It is wrong that the House of Commons should have that pressure put upon it, and I think it is only right that those who, like myself, have no connection with the industry, but who, again and again during this Parliament and the last Parliament—the last three or four Parliaments, for that matter—have always seen the position of this industry put first, and the rest of the country left to follow in any way that may happen to be convenient to the Government of the day. We all know that many mineowners have suffered entire extinction of their capital, and that many miners have been living for years under conditions which any humane Member of Parliament would like to see bettered. This question of hours and wages is not merely a matter of making a comparison, as was done by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), between what is happening to-
day and what happened in 1919 or 1920, when the conditions of world trade were absolutely different. The question at the moment is as to how the trade is to be kept alive at all.
I would ask the House to consider whether it really thinks that this Bill will do anything whatever to improve the condition of the trade as a whole. It lays down a 12 months' truce. Our party were blamed earlier in the evening by the Secretary for Mines because we allowed a period of five years. If five years was not long enough under that Bill, the hon. Gentleman could easily have allowed a longer period under this Measure if he had wished to do so; it would have been perfectly simple. But I am not taking the point of the actual number of years, because, after all the Debates that I have listened to on this subject in the past, I see one sign of light at the present time. It is possible that you may fix a maximum day by means of a conference at Geneva, and you may have that agreement ratified by the whole of the great coal-producing nations. Would it not have been possible, instead of putting in your definite time of 12 months, to insert in the Bill a perfectly clear and simple statement that this time of 7½ hours went on until the position was made clear at Geneva and ratified? Would the miners or the owners have refused it? The leaders of the miners put their trust in international conferences. Would it not have been better to say, "We believe we can get this international agreement, and we believe that is the right way of doing it," and appeal to the House to put that in the Bill? I believe the miners outside would have accepted it. There may be reasons why that cannot happen, but, looking at it from the point of view of one who wants to see some permanent settlement arrived at, it seems that you have missed a great opportunity.
You are giving this 12 months and the Government are proceeding on exactly the same lines as they have done in finance and in every other method of legislation. You are laying down a period of 12 months, which you hope will see you over the present emergency, and which means that next year, when every human being in the House hopes there will be signs of better trade, when your
trade and industry is rising and getting better, once again, unless you can have negotiations and a settlement, you will see the whole position upset. That in itself is an argument which ought to appeal to the Government. The result must be that this permanent lack of settlement in the matter of hours not only affects the working and development of the pits, not only affects your home trade, but makes it almost impossible to regain your overseas markets, and you are putting a great weapon in the hands of your competitors. The more you look at this Bill the more you come to the conclusion that this is simply another instance of the Government having failed, as it has failed, in almost every series of negotiations that have taken place, and are asking the parties in the House to help to get them out of their mess. On an occasion such as this, when we realise the position of our trade and industry, it is hopelessly impossible for any party to divide against the Government.
It is wrong that the Prime Minister—I blame him on this point more than anyone else—should again and again come before the House in this way and ask us to save him from his own mistakes. He has muddled and failed in nearly every single conference that he has touched in the last two years. The Prime Minister is almost perpetually coming to the House and curtailing or taking away the rights of private Members to discuss Bills and other legislation. He is asking us to-night to give a Second Heading to this Bill, and we are obliged in the national interest, although we thoroughly disapprove of the Bill, of the principles on which it is founded, and, still more, of the way in which the Government have brought it forward, to come to the help of the Primp. Minister, who never considers the interests of the House of Commons in these matters. We are asked to pass this Bill to-night simply because he has failed again to carry out the promises which he and many hon. Members opposite so freely made at the last election. When they go to their constituents, they are frequently asked why they are not keeping their promises. We are asked to pas" this Measure, but as far as I and a large number of back bench Members of my party are concerned, we do not accept the principle of the Bill.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Information to he furnished for purposes of register.)

(1) As soon us practicable after any scheme (other than a substitutional scheme) comes into force the board shall cause to be publislied in such newspapers as the Minister may direct, being newspapers circulating within the area to which the scheme is applicable, a form of application for registration as a producer under the scheme, together with a notice stating—

(a) the nature of the regulated product and the area to which the scheme is applicable;
(b) the classes or descriptions of producers which are exempted from registration and the procedure required (if any) for securing such exemption;
(c) that a poll of registered producers (other than producers exempted from registration) is to be taken in pursuance of this Act on the question whether the scheme shall remain in force;
(d) that no person will be entitled to vote on the poll aforesaid unless he is registered within the time specified in the notice;
(e) that, if it is decided as a result of the poll that the scheme shall remain in force, every producer who is not registered or exempted from registration will be prohibited from selling the regulated product;
(f) the place where copies of the scheme may be obtained on payment therefor;
(g) such other particulars as the board may think fit.

(2) The Minister, as soon as practicable after any scheme approved by him (other than a substitutional scheme) comes into force—

(a) shall cause a list to be compiled containing the names of all such persons as he has reason to believe are producers, together with their respective addresses so far as known to him and forward a copy of the list to the board; or
(b) if he has not sufficient information at his disposal to enable such a list as aforesaid to be compiled shall inform the board accordingly.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, any returns made under that Act may be used for the purpose of compiling the list aforesaid.

(4) As soon as practicable after receiving such a list as aforesaid the board shall send by post to every person named in the list, and to every other person whom the board have reason to believe is a producer, being a person who is not registered as a producer, a notice addressed to him at his last known address, stating the particulars required to be stated in the notice published under Subsection (1) of this Section together with a form of application for registration.—[Viscount Cranborne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There are some in this House, not very many, who do not approve of organised marketing at all. There are others who like it in principle. There are some who do not like this Bill, and there are others who do. But I think that the one thing about which we are all agreed, on whatever side of the House we sit, is that this Bill and the schemes it proposes to put forward will have no possible chance of success unless they have behind them the goodwill of the majority of the producers in the industry. It may be said that this is true of any scheme for rationalisation in any industry, but anyone who is in touch with the agricultural industry will be certain that it applies far more to the agricultural industry than to any other. The problems of co-operation are much more difficult in that industry than in the other industries of the country, and for two reasons. First of all, the units in the agricultural industry are very much smaller than they are in any other great industry. In other great industries of the country you have huge concerns very often interlocked, and if you get the good will of one, you get the good will of all; whereas in the agricultural industry each part, however small, 100 acres or even 50 acres, is an independent unit which has to be reckoned with. In other industries there is standardisation of machinery and methods; it is not so in the agricultural industry. In that industry you have large farms different from any other farms. Each farmer is faced with a different problem, such as differences of soil, and differences of grading. There are many farms where it takes a year or more, and sometimes many years, for the farmers to find out the exact type of agriculture best suited for the particular
land. As a result of all these factors, and of the additional factor that farmers do not live in tightly knit constituencies where there is an exchange of ideas, but very often far away from each other in remote country districts or on the downs or on the wolds, and the diversity of their holdings and their ideas, there is induced in the farmers of this country what you may call a sturdy independence of mind, or a militant individualism, or whatever you like to call it. It prevents the farmer from being attracted by the idea of co-operation. Co-operation is very attractive to hon. Members opposite but at first sight it does not appeal to the farming community. Therefore, if this Bill is to be a success and if the schemes are to work it can only be if the farmers are made to understand that the whole of the facts are being put before them and that they are not being blarneyed or bluffed to go into a scheme. The Minister is aware of the position, and we on this side would be most ungenerous if we did not pay a tribute of gratitude to his goodwill in this respect and for the way in which he has been willing to recognise our objections to the Bill on these grounds.
The Bill is very different from the one that came before the House originally. There have been many changes made Now—and this is one of the chief changes, and a most important one—there is to be a poll of registered producers before the Board can introduce any compulsory measures. That is an important concession, and it does give an immense importance to the poll itself. The poll becomes a very crucial part of the whole of the construction of the scheme. The poll as meant, and should, represent the organised, considered, informed opinion of the whole of the producers in the district. It is absolutely essential that everybody who is eligible to do so should take part in the poll, that they should have their opportunity of taking part, that they should know what the scheme is to be, what form it is to take and whether, having thought it out, they are in favour of the scheme or not. The object of the new Clause is to ensure that they do have that information. The procedure is simple. A scheme may be initiated by a number of people who in the opinion of the Minister substantially represent the producers in the district.
Having produced their scheme the Minister, having made such Amendments as he thinks fit and, if he thinks it necessary, having held an inquiry, will bring the scheme before Parliament. If the scheme passes both Houses of Parliament, he approves it and it comes into operation. That is where the new Clause comes in, once the scheme has been approved.
Immediately the Minister has approved the scheme it will be necessary for him to publish in all the local newspapers the nature of the regulated product and the area covered to enable everybody concerned to know to whom it refers. It will also give the class or descriptions of the producers who will be exempt and who, therefore, need no longer worry about the matter. In a case where a producer is obviously exempt he need worry no more. Where he is likely to be registered he will get himself registered at once. If he is doubtful about it he will be able to get information telling him how to find out whether or not he is exempt. There is also a paragraph to tell him that there will be a poll of registered producers, that no person will be entitled to vote who has not registered himself in time, and that a producer who is neither registered nor exempt will not be allowed to sell the regulated product after the passage of the scheme. That is an important point, because although it may, on the face of it, put people off, on the other hand it does give them the true facts. There is nothing more dangerous than for people to think that this scheme is somewhat in the nature of a company promoter who paints the scheme in the rosiest colours, and afterwards they find out that there are difficulties accruing from it. They wish to know all the facts at once. That is of immense importance. Finally, there is a provision to enable them to know where they can get a copy of the scheme and study it before a poll is taken.
The second half of the new Clause deals with what happens between the Minister and the board. The Minister will send to the board a copy of the names and addresses of all the producers in the area as far as he can get them, and which will be culled chiefly from the agricultural returns. The board will send out a copy of the Minister's statement and a form enabling the person to be registered to each of these people, and to anyone else
who they have reason to believe is a registered producer inside the district. That, roughly speaking, is the purpose of the Clause. It is a good one, will strengthen the Bill and will provide an answer to one of the greatest complaints which producers have in regard to this Bill—namely, that a scheme may be foisted upon them by a small and unrepresentative caucus inside the district without the knowledge and against the will of the great majority of producers. That would be a most unfortunate thing, and if the Minister accepts the Clause it will become virtually impossible. It is not a question of principle which is involved, but a question of machinery, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept it.

Captain DUGDALE: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not want to continue the Debate and impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of accepting this new Clause, but I should like to ask him, when he is replying, to tell us where he intends to insert it in the Bill. There are two alternatives. It may come after Clause 2, which deals with the constitution of boards to administer schemes which have been decided upon, or, failing that, it might come conveniently after Clause 4 which deals with the voluntary provisions of a scheme.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The new Clause represents, gathered together, a number of considerations which were advanced in our discussion upstairs, and I think they have been gathered together very neatly. The point really is to secure that the registered producers are fully informed of all that the scheme contains, of their rights with regard to a poll, and that facilities should be provided as far as possible to enable the board to become acquainted with the whereabouts and addresses of the likely producers. The Committee discussed this point, but we were embarrassed by the fact that the agricultural returns which were made were secret. We came to the conclusion that we could give the boards the names and addresses of the producers of different commodities without in any way giving away information as to their business or other matters which the returns include, and that I see has been embodied in the new Clause. I have considered it with
great care with our advisers, and I think it does gather together and represent the undertakings which I gave in Committee. I therefore offer no objection to the Clause, and I advise the House to incorporate it in the Bill. As to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Captain Dugdale), the appropriate place in the Bill is after Clause 3 and if the House adopts it, it will be there inserted.

Viscount WOLMER: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very cordially for the way in which he has met us on this very important point. In doing so it would be only fair on my part if I made an acknowledgment of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, on a number of important points, has met us in Committee upstairs. I would like to pay a tribute to him for having made a genuine attempt to meet our criticisms on many points. This is another instance. We should be ungrateful if we did not acknowledge that fact. One of the most important changes made during the Committee stage, as a result of Amendments moved from this side, was to institute a poll of producers, registered members of every marketing board, as to whether their marketing scheme should continue in operation. That was a most important Amendment which in principle the Minister accepted. But then the question arose how were we to make sure that the poll would be a really representative poll.
That is the point with which this new Clause deals. It provides that the moment a scheme has been approved by Parliament, the board shall be forced to advertise the details of the scheme in all the localities affected, and that the Minister shall be empowered to supply the board with the name of all farmers known to him who are producing that particular commodity. I would draw attention to the fact that the Minister is not empowered to inform the board of anything except the names of the farmers growing that particular crop. He is not empowered to divulge any of the details supplied to him under the Agricultural Returns Act. The board is thereupon obliged to send a circular to every one of these farmers, and to any other farmer who, they have reason to know, is growing that crop. I do not know what other steps can be taken to ensure the greatest publicity to these
schemes. I am delighted that the Minister has not shirked publicity, but has accepted the Amendment to enable every scheme to be launched with the full knowledge of the farmers concerned. If the farmers have the facts placed before them, if they are given an opportunity of voting as to whether they want a marketing scheme or not, a great many of the dangers which some of us anticipated in regard to this Bill are to that extent removed. I am not saying that I think the Bill will be of great value in a number of cases, but I do say that this Amendment, coupled with the Amendment carried in Committee, does enable the farmers to have all the facts placed before them and to exercise their discretion as to whether they want a marketing scheme. Personally I am quite prepared to leave that matter in the hands of the farmers themselves.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: I am very glad that the Minister has accepted the Amendment. May I suggest that in another place words should be inserted to specify where copies of the scheme may be inspected and obtained? There is only provision made for obtaining copies on payment and, as I understand it, the intention of the Minister is that no person should be put to any expense before the scheme comes into force. In Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 provision could be made to specify the place where they could be inspected or obtained on payment. That is quite a reasonable thing which could be done in another place. The second point I wish to make is that I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the new Clause would be inserted after Clause 3. Should it not come in before Clause 3, which provides for a poll being taken?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should like to join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in thanking the Minister for the way in which he has met us, not only on this proposed new Clause, but on other Amendments, and also to bear testimony to the conciliatory way in which he conducted the Bill through Committee upstairs. I could only wish that another Minister, who shall be nameless, was carrying on his Bill in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman, and then we should have a much happier time in that Committee. I am very glad indeed that
the right hon. Gentleman has accepted this new Clause, because though the heading is only:
Information to be furnished for purposes of register,
this is a very important bit of machinery. Indeed, it is more than a bit of machinery; it is almost a principle. Though there are many things we should wish had been done for agriculture before agricultural marketing, and though the advantages to agriculture which can come from successful marketing are strictly limited, yet I, at any rate, am not opposed to the principle of the Bill. I think, sooner or later whichever Government was in power would have had to bring forward a Bill of this sort. Personally, I prefer voluntary co-operation, but if you cannot get voluntary co-operation—which you cannot—you have got to face compulsory co-operation. If that be so, and if, therefore, you wish this Bill to be a success, you must take all the steps you possibly can to enable those who are entitled to take part in the scheme, to know about it and appreciate it—and so do away with the cloud of prejudice which is apt to surround anything new where agriculture is concerned—and to inform the producer meticulously, and almost absurdly minutely, what he has to do, what the advantages of the scheme are and generally to dry-nurse him. It may seem somewhat complicated and long-winded, but often the longest way round is the shortest way there. By accepting the Clause, the Minister will have assisted the carrying through of a scheme which many of us have very near to our hearts.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Amid the chorus of congratulations to the Minister, one aspect of this question has been overlooked. I also wish to congratulate the Minister heartily. I believe that be is the first Minister who has got through the proceedings on a Bill of this character without moving the Closure and that is a triumph of common sense which I wish other Ministers would note. If the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that common sense he would not have got his Bill through Committee so quickly. In connection with this new Clause, however, I wish to draw attention to paragraph (g) of Sub-section (1) which refers to
Such other particulars as the board may think fit.
I can visualise what those other particulars will be. The question will be asked: What is going to be the effect of products which are produced outside the area and brought into it? The Minister, unfortunately, has not chosen to accept the verdict of the committee which was in favour of regulating products produced outside the area, with the result that where a scheme is introduced everybody will want to know what is to be the effect of dumping. The Bill itself does not deal with dumping, but all those invited to go into a scheme will ask the board, as one of the very first questions, What is going to be the effect of foreign imports flooding an area, and under paragraph (g) they will be able to ask that question. I suggest that anybody reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings and of this. Report stage must take special note of the fact that the committee and the Conservative party as a whole thought that this Bill would be useless unless it dealt with foreign imports. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I do not think that I am out of order, and I draw the attention of the House to the subject because this may be the only opportunity, on the Report stage, of doing so. I consider that the Bill is rendered useless because foreign imports are not dealt with, but I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to accept this new Clause including paragraph (g). It shows the first glimmerings of a new common sense and a new vision which will enable the right hon. Gentleman, when the Conservative party is in power, to see that we can control foreign imports and work this Bill at the same time.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS rose——

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

11.0 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have every intention of exercising my right to criticise this Clause. I was on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, and I have been on a great many other Committees as well, and I may add my voice to the voices of other hon. Members who have congratulated the Minister on his wisdom in not moving the Closure on any occasion during those proceedings. I also congratulate him on having accepted the new Clause. I wonder if the House realises quite how far this new Clause goes. I should like to know what my hon.
Friends whose names are down to this Clause mean by paragraph (b):
(b) the classes or descriptions of producers which are exempted from registration and the procedure required (if any) for securing such exemption.
Who is going to be exempted from registration? Before the Clause is accepted, even at this late hour, we ought to know who are going to be exempted under this paragraph. Does it apply to the producers of the article in a given area, or to the producers of the article in that particular area plus the area outside but within Great Britain? Further than that, what is the position of anyone producing that article outside Great Britain and bringing it into this country. Have the people who produce, say, potatoes, wherever they may produce them, in any part of the world, all to be added to this list? It seems as if you might have a fairly costly and long list of producers.
In regard to Sub-section (2), it will be seen that the Minister is to cause a list to be compiled, and I conclude that it will be compiled at the taxpayers' expense, or rather out of the subsidy which we are giving to the agricultural community with which to start these schemes. I am not complaining of this long and complicated proceeding, but I think we might have some estimate from the Minister of what the cost is likely to be. I am a little surprised that the Minister has been able to agree to this particular Sub-section, because I understood that the position at present was one in which it was not advisable to add anything at all to the national expenditure. I have no real objection to the Clause as a whole, except that I think it is a great pity that it could not have been introduced in the original Bill and considered in Committee, rather than having to be taken here at this very late hour, which is so inconvenient to all of us.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: I am glad the Minister has accepted this Clause, but there is a point to which I should like to give further consideration, with a view to having an alteration made in another place. It is important that you should lay down some regulation with regard to the period that is to elapse before a poll is taken, and with regard to the time that is to be allowed for registration. Perhaps the
right hon. Gentleman will have a definite period put into the Bill when it is in another place because the period ought not to be left to the board.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Submission and approval of schemes.)

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words, "to which this Act applies."

This Amendment is one of a group which will enable the House to dispense with the Fourth Schedule of the Bill. It will be remembered that in the Second Reading discussion a good many questions were asked as to whether there would be a definition of "agricultural product" in the Bill; and in the discussions upstairs, as we approached the Fourth Schedule, it became evident to every Member of the Committee that it would be much more satisfactory if we could have a general definition of "agricultural product" without trying to specify a particular product. At the same time, it was clearly felt that in defining "agricultural product," you must have something which is bona fide to be regarded as an agricultural product and not something which may be far removed from it although made from the same material. We may speak of animals' hoofs in the long run as agricultural products, but it is not desired in this Bill that articles of that kind should be brought into the definition. In order to secure that a definition should be incorporated in the Bill of a general kind, it is necessary to omit these particular words "to which this Act applies," and to insert a definition of "agricultural product" later on. The general definition which I am asking the House to accept—and perhaps it will be more convenient if I say what I have to say on this group of Amendments, so as to avoid repetition—is one which appears later on the Paper, and is the same as that which is incorporated in the Bill now in another place, and it will enable the national mark, for example, to be extended to I am. My Amendment would provide that an agricultural product would include:
any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals.

Hon. Members in the Committee stage brought up curious and difficult questions which arose out of the Fourth Schedule, and this definition is an improvement in the Bill which was generally asked for. It is a general definition of "agricultural product" so far as we can devise one.

Viscount WOLMER: I think the Minister has taken the right course in moving this Amendment. I feel I am echoing the feelings of all Members of Standing Committee B in saying that the further we went with the Bill the less satisfied we became with the Fourth Schedule, which gave a list of articles to which the Minister thought the Bill might be applicable. When we came to the point of having to leave out the word "poultry" in order to insert "domestic fowls" we reached the summit of absurdity. The Minister was asked a number of questions which he was unable to answer as to whether turkeys were domestic fowls, and the like, and we all came to the conclusion that the Schedule was unsatisfactory. Therefore I was glad when I saw that the Minister had adopted the suggestion originally proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) that the Fourth Schedule should be left out altogether and that he should proceed to tackle the question in the way he is doing. Under this Amendment all agricultural products will be treated on an equality. If there is any demand for an agricultural product to be put under the Marketing Board the case will first have to be made to the Minister and then to Parliament, and each case will have to be treated on its merits.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: This Amendment is really going against what the Minister did in Committee. Many of the items recorded in the Fourth Schedule require a much more precise definition than is possible under it. Take cattle, for instance. It may be desired to deal with fat cattle but not with store cattle. The same consideration applies to the various types of cereals. We ought to know from the
Minister whether it is his intention to remove the Fourth Schedule altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what the Amendment does."] Then I think the Amendment is very desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "two months" and to insert instead thereof the words "six weeks."
In the Bill as originally drafted the period was one month but in Committee it was decided to extend it to two months. Since that Amendment was made a great deal of change has taken place in the framework of the Bill, especially as regards Clause I, and the effect of what has been done has been to ensure that a period somewhere below six months and a year must elapse between the date of the submision of a scheme and its coming into force. There are two points to be considered in settling a period like this. In the first place it must be long enough for notice of objection to be given, but on the other hand we do not wish for delay to occur-In the circumstances and considering the very large number of safeguards which have been accepted, we desire to make the period six weeks instead of two months.

Viscount WOLMER: This Amendment goes back upon a concession which was made during the Committee stage, but, after carefully studying the Amendment, I am bound to say with absolute candour that I think that the Minister has good cause for asking us to accept it. This Amendment was originally proposed during the Committee stage before the poll was inserted in the Bill and at the point we were pressing the Minister to delay the various stages of the Bill in order to make sure that no scheme would get through without all the members concerned being made aware of it. The Minister then made the period two months, but subsequently he accepted the poll, which enabled a vote to be taken and which only becomes operative if two-thirds of the producers are in favour of it. The Amendment now ensures that every single producer will have the scheme brought to his attention.
I do not, however, think that it is playing the game to press the Minister for a concession and when he has given it to say "thank you for nothing." I recognise the importance of these two concessions, and I think that we should be meeting the Minister fairly if we do not divide against this Amendment. I think the period is still a very long one. Even if this Bill passes before August it will be impossible for any scheme to operate before next February and therefore there is no danger of anything being rushed through without the farmers and all concerned being made aware of it. Personally I do not believe, that there will be a large number of schemes under this Bill. The point is, whether the Minister is entitled to ask for a shorter period, and I think that this is a fair request.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am sorry to say-that I do not find myself in agreement with my Noble Friend. It is not a question of concessions or changes in the Bill that we have to consider, but really the question whether two months or six weeks is the proper time to give to the farming community in which to make objections. I do not see that the fact that a poll has been promised, or that a new Clause has been accepted, should make us change our minds as to whether the period should be two months or six weeks, and, with all deference to the Minister for his kindly consideration and courtesy, I do not think that, because he meets us in one thing, it necessarily follows that we must accept his Amendments in other respects. I agree that it is not a matter of very great importance whether the period is two months or six weeks; we have to consider what is most likely to suit the needs of the rural community. If this were an urban question, I should be prepared to agree that a month would be sufficient; but in the country districts farmers are rather leisurely in their methods, and do not, perhaps, read even the local newspapers as much as people do in the towns; and, therefore, I am inclined to think that it would be better if the original period of two months remained. Although, however, to my regret, I differ from my Noble Friend, I am bound to say that I should not go to the extent of voting against him.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "if," and to insert instead thereof the word "unless."

This Amendment and the next—in page 2, line 39, to leave out the words "desire to withdraw the scheme," and to insert instead thereof the words "assent to his modifications "—really form one Amendment. They make no real difference with regard to the right of persons to make objections, but the Sub-section provides that persons who object to the modifications made by the Minister may make their objections within four weeks, and that means that, even though the persons to whom the modifications have been submitted notified the Minister within one week that they agree, the Minister would be still held up for another three weeks. These Amendments provide that, where persons to whom modifications are submitted notify the Minister that they desire to withdraw the scheme, the Minister cannot proceed, but that if, on the other hand, they notify him that they are willing to proceed with the scheme, the Minister can proceed straight away. The only change is that, while the objections can be raised just as effectively, the purely arbitrary period during which the Minister has to wait without doing anything will be done away with.

Mr. BLINDELL: I do not rise to oppose these Amendments—I think they are quite good—but to call attention to a weakness in the whole scheme. Under this Sub-section, after objections have been made to a scheme and the Minister has considered them and made such modifications as he may desire, there is still only one course open to the people who have presented the scheme, to object to it as a whole, and it becomes nonexistent. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could find some means to allow the promoters to make counter representations so that the entire scheme need not be lost.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 39, leave out the words "desire to withdraw the scheme "and insert instead thereof the words "assent to the modifications."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
() As soon as possible after making an order approving a scheme the Minister shall cause the order to be published in the Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best for informing persons affected.
As originally introduced, the Bill laid it down that it would be an offence for any unregistered producer to sell a regulated product, which in effect was a compulsion to register. The Committee took the view—and the Government agreed with the Committee—that no question of compulsion should be brought into operation unless two-thirds of the producers affected by any particular scheme were in favour of it. Accordingly at this stage, where the Minister or a prima facie demand for a scheme, has approved the preliminaries, there is no power to draw up a complete register and the only way that an adequate register can be drawn up before a poll can be taken is by full publicity. Therefore it becomes essential to the working of the Bill as now planned, with the new Clause 3 in it providing for a poll, to have some such words as these making certain that the Minister shall have the responsibility put upon him of securing the necessary publicity before a poll is taken, so as to ensure that a substantial body of the producers likely to be affected are registered. One of the main difficulties that the Bill is likely to have in the country, if it reaches the Statute Book, is the suspicion, not so much of the farmers and producers as of the other interests affected, the auctioneers and the people engaged in the distribution of agricultural products.
For that reason it is all the more important that there should be full publicity, not merely for the producers, but for those interests, as to what the scheme does and does not propose. There are still a great many local authorities that are apprehensive that these schemes are going to include all sorts of proposals for pulling down markets and erecting entirely new ones elsewhere. I do not suppose that that will happen under a scheme, but it is important for people who have those ideas that a scheme should have effective publicity. I know that there is this mysterious document, the "Gazette," but it is not everybody who sees the "Gazette." Therefore, I hope that, if the Minister accepts the Amendment, drafted as it is in technical and general terms, he will make it clear to the House and to the
country that, when a scheme is approved, he will pay particular attention to the second part of my Amendment, and will by means of publication in the local newspapers and the like give effective publicity to a scheme before the next step is taken and the register is drawn up and the poll is taken as to whether it shall come into effective operation or not.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to second the Amendment. I commend it to the Minister. This is another example of how the Bill would be very much improved were the Minister to accept our Amendments, and I sincerely hope he will accept the present Amendment. It substitutes for penalties and compulsion the benign power of publicity. Any registered producer, if he sells the registered product, will not be subject to the penalties which would have been the case under the original Bill. In farming, very often a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and in this case I sincerely hope, if the Minister accepts the Amendment, that the knowledge which will be available will be of assistance, not only to the producers, but to the Minister himself.

Dr. ADDISON: I shall be glad to accept the Amendment in pursuance of the undertaking I gave that the widest publicity should be given. The more one knows about the matter the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am glad that the Minister has seen his way to accept the Amendment, though I am very much astonished that he should do so. I am not astonished at him being reasonable, but I am astonished that the Government should depart from the methods of secret diplomacy which have percolated through to every comer of their minds hitherto. I am glad the Amendment is being accepted by the Government, although I notice signs of disagreement on the benches opposite. I must try and comfort hon. Members opposite. The Orders will cover a great deal of ground, but I hope they will be made as short and simple as possible. Unless there is the fullest possible publicity, the average person affected by the Orders—and a great many more people will be affected than is generally believed—will be at a great disadvantage. The Orders will affect not only the selling, but the buying of various articles, and it would be horrible to think that owing to a lack of publicity people
might conceivably be prosecuted because accidentally they had bought an article which they had no right to buy in a particular way. In the agricultural community there is a dislike of the Bill. I have hoped throughout its stages that the Bill would become law, but I have always felt that, if it is to be successful, it must have the fullest confidence of the public, especially of the producers in the industry affected. To achieve that end there must be full publication. Take as an example new potatoes. We are dealing only with potatoes produced in this country; outside potatoes are not affected. How far does the Minister propose to publish the Order? Suppose there is an area in Cornwall growing the produce. It is no good publishing the Order in Cornwall and leaving out other parts of England. The west country papers will not be read in, say, the Isle of Wight or any of the southern counties. It is necessary to have wide publication.

Mr. DALLAS: They will get wide publication by substituting the "Daily Herald" for the "Gazette."

Mr. WILLIAMS: Publishing in the "Daily Herald" would not meet my argument. It might be all right for betting news but for business or political purposes people of common intelligence do not read it. If a product is to be regulated it is necessary that there should be the widest circulation. There might be a system for the buying and selling of mutton. In such a case, unless you were to have the Order broken by a largo number of people, it would be necessary to have the information circulated in areas outside the prescribed area, otherwise the Order might be broken in one way or another. The Minister has considerably improved the Bill by accepting the Amendment, and has done something towards ensuring for it a useful future.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of boards to administer schemes.)

Major MUIRHEAD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out the words "together with," and to insert instead thereof the words:
and except in the case of a substitutional scheme.
I have a series of Amendments dealing with the same subject, and I ask leave
to deal with the whole of them on this Amendment. The question at issue is that of amalgamating schemes. If the Bill meets with the success which the Minister anticipates, there will be a considerable number of schemes eventually in existence, and probably the next step will be that two or more might wish to amalgamate and form a bigger scheme. If the Bill is to be complete, some machinery to allow for amalgamation must be included. The position at the present moment is this. If there are two schemes covering areas A and B wish to amalgamate into a combined scheme covering area C, only one course is open, and that is for the Minister to revoke schemes A and B. That means that in order to form scheme C you have to go through the whole process of setting up a virtually new scheme. Consequently you have delay, an intermediate period. My purpose is to get over that difficulty, and I am suggesting that schemes which are revoked by subsequent schemes shall continue in an altered form until the subsequent scheme is set up. But I do want to see whether there are not certain cases where one can, to some extent, get over the interregnum between the scheme being formed and coming into full operation. I want to devise a particular machinery to a particular class of scheme. The particular class of amalgamated scheme I propose to call a substitutional scheme. The definition of a substitutional scheme is contained in an Amendment to Clause 18, on page 21, Briefly it is this: That any person who is entitled to register in either of the existing schemes shall be entitled to register under the substitutional scheme, and no person who is not entitled to register under one of the existing schemes shall be entitled to register under the substitutional scheme. Therefore, the people who are to be entitled to register under the substitutional scheme are to be those who are entitled to register under the other schemes, neither more nor less. To that particular class of scheme, the substitutional scheme, the alteration in machinery which I propose is this: That the formation of the substitutional scheme shall not operate entirely as if it was the formation of a new scheme, but rather as if it was merely an Amendment to the two existing schemes which it is proposed to amalgamate. That will
have the effect of getting over the period of interregnum before the poll is taken.
Let me draw attention to what takes place when an Amendment of an existing scheme is suggested. If it is desired to amend a scheme, the scheme has to be put to the board; it is put to the various producers, who may agree with it, or, if a certain number of them demand a poll, the poll is taken, and if the poll goes against the scheme the Amendment is defeated; but if there is a sufficient majority the Amendment goes forward to the Minister himself, for his approval, and is then laid before Parliament. That is the machinery which at present operates when you want to amend a scheme. I propose to apply that machinery in toto to the formation of a substitutional scheme. It will have the effect that all the people to be affected by the substitutional scheme will have a complete opportunity of demanding a poll and, if necessary, recording their votes. The point is that when the Amendment or the substitutional scheme—they are one and the same thing—is finally approved by the Minister and by Parliament it can come into operation at once, coincident with the order for revoking existing schemes which have been amalgamated. That is the object of the Amendment. In, the case of all other schemes I do not think it is desirable or possible to facilitate the machinery by which amalgamation can take place. In rendering amalgamation schemes easier in certain cases we should be carefully on guard against making an amalgamation too easy, so that it may possibly go through to the injury of some persons. Except for the Amendment which I shall move later and which obviates the necessity of the Minister revoking subsequent schemes which infringe on the areas affected, as far as I am concerned I propose that the machinery with regard to the formulation of new schemes and amalgamated schemes shall remain unchanged.

The Amendment I am moving is simply one which says that in the case of substitutional schemes all the members of the board of the new substitutional schemes shall be persons named in the scheme. In the case of any initial scheme they are all named in the scheme, with the addition of two members who are
nominated by the Minister. In the case of substitutional schemes, I propose that the Minister's nominations shall be named and that the whole of the personnel of the board shall be persons named in the scheme.

Lord STANLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: I must cordially congratulate the hon. Member on the ingenuity which he has displayed in this matter. He contributed a good deal to our discussions upstairs on this very technical and interesting point. The whole idea was to see how we could devise arrangements so as to secure that the agreed schemes which were in substitution of, or amendments of, other schemes were brought into operation without any delay and without any unnecessary machinery attached to them. He suggested this scheme in Committee, and I said I should be glad to enter into friendly consultation with him and his hon. Friends between then and the Report stage to see if we could devise suitable machinery. I think the hon. Member deserves much credit for suggesting this very ingenious series of Amendments, and I am very glad to accept the Amendment now before the House and those which follow.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sure the Minister is wise to accept my hon. Friend's plan, and I should like to congratulate him on the way in which he has done it. I think it is a real improvement to the Bill, for it provides greater elasticity. If you are trying a new plan, you must endeavour to make it adaptable to as many different circumstances as possible. One of the great difficulties in dealing with agriculture in the general terms of an Act of Parliament is that agriculture is not one single industry but many different industries carried on in many different circumstances in different parts of the country. Therefore, you must have a great variety in procedures available for the development of these schemes so that that which may be most suitable can be provided. I
think my hon. Friend's plan does meet the case of either the amalgamation of all schemes identical in every respect except in regard to locality, and also other schemes. It is really a great improvement in the Bill, and I am delighted that the conferences between him and the Minister have resulted in this series of Amendments which I hope will have the support of all parties in the House.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Sub-section (5, b), which says:
(b) no scheme shall ho modified so as to be applicable to any area to which it would not have been applicable without modification.
If there is an amalgamation of schemes, it is possible that you may have to alter those words, because although it may not be a modification in the technical sense, these words may mean that if there is an alteration in a scheme it will be difficult for it to come within the terms of Sub-section (5, b). Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will meet the point, if necessary, in another place.

Dr. ADDISON: If a scheme were modified, it could not apply to an area to which it could not originally apply. I will think over the point further, but I am satisfied that these words are all right.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
There was an understanding that we should try to make a certain amount of progress, and I think we have made a satisfactory beginning.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the Rouse without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before Twelve o'Clock.